AV1 for video: https://aomedia.org/specifications/av1/
And Opus for audio: https://opus-codec.org/
H264 is the compatibility king.
https://www.techspot.com/news/111865-dolby-sues-snap-over-vi...
Just use AAC-LC, Redhat declares it patent expired and has the widest compatibility besides only mp3. At 192Kbps or above it is as good as Opus.
> Since 2013, the Xiph.Org Foundation has stated that the use of Vorbis should be deprecated in favor of the Opus codec
I never heard of Opus, so some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)
From what I can find, seems opus only supports audio. ogg also has a video format (ogv), odd it is suggested ogg was superseded by opus. Maybe I am missing something ?
It's like Matroska: https://www.matroska.org/what_is_matroska.html
Vorbis was hit-or-miss. In some cases it did better on same or lower bitrate than MP3 encoded by LAME, in some cases worse. It also suffered an entirely new category of "chirpy/tweety" artefacts similar to what MP3 exhibits at very low bitrates, but with Vorbis they showed up even at nominal bitrates during certain complex spectral patterns. I was a vocal proponent of Vorbis back when it surfaced, but soon changed stance when realizing how unreliable it was quality-wise.
I would bet that the primary reason wasn't the container format, which nobody really cares about and most users wouldn't have been aware of, but rather the fact that the file extension was '.ogg'.
And don't underestimate dav1d (https://www.videolan.org/projects/dav1d.html). You can comfortably play AV1 video in software on your phone. Try it with VLC.
Maybe for about 15 minutes before your battery is drained to 20%. I'm not aware of any software video decoder at all that won't unacceptably heat up your phone and kill your battery.
Also decoding on a reasonably powerful (non-accelerated) cpu is fast enough for 1080p, not ideal for battery life but still.
You need to understand that these are parasitic businesses. They didn't develop AV1. They didn't contribute to AV1. But they will make any claim they think they can get away with.
Show me the court case they've won that validates their claims on AV1.
On the other side, you've got patent trolls who are upset that their shitty business model is coming to an end. They're just being loud as they're losing.
[0] https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...
I hope Redhat do something similar work to AAC-LC and declares certain profile patent free.
This lets patent holders spread FUD over whether earlier parts of the standard are actually patent free even after 20 years have passed since the original publishing.
In the face of patent holders threatening a costly legal battle, companies choose to continue paying licensing fees even on standards which plainly should be out of patent protection.
I would guess that this is because the larger the number for major players, the more incentive they would have to invest in supporting open standards (or try and get a standard of their own).
This is evidence that the patent system is not doing what it's supposed to be doing imo.
I realize that's never going to happen and would probably have lots of unintended consequences. It's just a thought experiment after all. I find it interesting to think about because R&D can still be recouped under such a model which ... is kind of the entire (supposed) point of the system. Allegedly.
If nothing else we would presumably have seen mass market epaper and 3D printers much sooner.
Isn't this the definition of FRAND which nearly the entire interview with the lawyer from the article is about?
It's really just a thought experiment about how you might kill patent trolls as well as the asymmetric advantages that large corporations enjoy while still maintaining the spirit of funding the R&D done by participants of all sizes.
