Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

You’re not left with an “option” of an audio standard that none of your customers hardware or browsers support.

If the open solution doesn't take off in favor of the proprietary solution, then you're in essentially the same end state as if there was no open solution in the first place.

Not after you’ve already encoded your audio to support it. From history we know that Google isn’t going to do the leg work it takes to make the standard ubiquitous.

Why would you only encode your media in a format that none of your customers have support for in the first place?

Additionally, being an open standard, you can probably rely on ffmpeg supporting it. This allows you to transcode into something that your proprietary encoder will support for ingest if it comes to that.

Yes because transcoding audio couldn’t possibly lead to lesser quality.

Neither of these (HDR10+/DV, open spatial audio/Atmos) are due to compression, so yeah, kind of. They're both metadata schemes on top of other, pluggable compression schemes. So yeah, I wouldn't expect a conversion to necessarily end up with a loss of quality.

This is also ignoring the first sentence: your whole supposition is based on a scenario where you as the content producer for some reason encoded in a format that your customers don't have, and don't have the masters for some reason. Which is basically absurd for anything that would need dynamic HDR or spatial audio.

The browsers will support this. Customer hardware from large venders will take more time or never happen if they are getting paid not to. But other hardware can take it's place.

You think Apple will support it or even Microsoft? The large hardware vendors not supporting it is really a big deal don’t you think?

They both support the AOM.

They both also "support" Khronos - doesn't mean anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com