8 ms·

This is pure politics. The AOM want proof of loyalty and shipping a competing image format threatens that loyalty pact. It’s also incrementalism at its finest.

by cflat 4y ago

This is pure politics. The AOM want proof of loyalty and shipping a competing image format threatens that loyalty pact. It’s also incrementalism at its finest. “We already shipped av1, adding a single frame decode is minor overhead” is the likely rationale. But it misses the point that images are gazed at while video is moving and can get away with a lot of quality sins that you can’t with images. But worse is that av1 is full of optional features. Sure the client could implement it, but how can you know? Even the lauded animated avif is horribly broken across the ecosystem because of this optionality — and there isn’t any way to tell a priori if the browser can support animated avif. Or 444 avif. Or ycocg avif. It’s just down right broken as an image format falling to the lowest common denominator.

mort96 4y ago
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  While I agree that it is too early to turn to a conspiracy theory, the supposed rationale against JPEG XL is also pretty unsubstantiated and it does feel that the Chrome team doesn't want to share the actual rationale for whatever reason.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Google's rationale is very weak, yes. But it makes no sense to say that this is the AOM pushing Google to do this as a proof of loyalty. Why wouldn't the same apply to Apple and Mozilla? In fact, if deprecating JPEG-XL is something the AOM wants, wouldn't you expect the browser vendors (all of whom are AOM founders) to all conspire to kill JPEG-XL? The right conspiracy theory here isn't even that AOM is forcing Google to do this as a proof of loyalty, the conspiracy theory which at least makes some semblance of sense is that Apple, Google and Mozilla are working to kill JPEG-XL to help their own image format win. But then it's just a group of companies acting in their own self interest and not some coercion, so I suppose that story isn't as sexy.
- ksec 4y ago
  >What the hell is up with the fierce hatred of the AOM on this site? Fierce hatred? Literally 95%+ ( if not 99% ) of HN called for AV1 and AVIF support in browser for the past 5+ years. AOM, Rust and RISC-V, any discussions of alternatives are deemed to be not worthy or evil.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Any time the AOM is mentioned people keep talking about how evil AV1 is and how evil Google is for pushing AV1 through YouTube, and those comments are consistently among the most upvoted comments. I'd say it's safe to say there's a decent amount of hatred being expressed, and I just don't understand it. It's almost as if a decent chunk of the HN audience has a vested interest in eliminating open patent-free media codecs.
    - ksec 4y ago
      > HN audience has a vested interest in eliminating open patent-free media codecs. Well, first, because in the case of AV1, a self claimed patent free Video Codec is not, and never was, patent free. ( They stopped claiming to be one since around 2019 ). Second, the AV1 is evil or evil Google ( I dont think they said it but you could argue they do implied that ) you were referring to is very recent. To the point it was this month on HN. But yes, it has grown, quite a bit in the past year or so. Third, because a few HN audience actually cares about quality and trade offs. One could argue VP9 being a royalty free codec is actually a better fit than AV1. And despite being so called Open, Google isn't very receptive to criticism of AV1. Whether it was the codec itself or its development model. Had Google ( or AOM ) actually worked on AV2 [1] with all these in mind, may be there wouldn't be as much backlash. [1] AV2 was originally promised to be out by 2020.
      - mort96 4y ago
        I don't understand why you and everyone else put so much focus on Google. AV1 is developed by the AOM, so why would Google be receptive to criticism of AV1? Why is it Google's responsibility to develop AV2? People keep directing (well-deserved) criticism of Google towards AV1/AOM, and in your comment you're directing criticism of AV1/AOM towards Google. Is Amazon, Cisco, Intel, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, ARM, Netflix, Samsung, Facebook, etc etc. truly so insignificant in this that AOM and Google are basically one and the same? Why would that huge group of absolutely enormous companies let themselves be bossed around by Google? Regarding patents: my understanding is that AV1, like VP9 but unlike H.265, is unencumbered by patents, and you can use AV1 in products and FOSS projects without paying a license/royalties. Is this incorrect? If so, why has nobody updated Wikipedia? They still list AV1 as a royalty-free codec. If it truly is just as parent encumbered as H.265 then I agree with all the criticism, and our best bet is to stick with the very first version of H.264 (whose parents will expire next year) and JPEG. Because surely any patents which apply to AV1 also apply to its predecessors VP8 and VP9.
aargh_aargh 4y ago
AOM = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media

by cflat 4y ago

mort96 4y ago

lifthrasiir 4y ago
While I agree that it is too early to turn to a conspiracy theory, the supposed rationale against JPEG XL is also pretty unsubstantiated and it does feel that the Chrome team doesn't want to share the actual rationale for whatever reason.
- mort96 4y ago
  Google's rationale is very weak, yes. But it makes no sense to say that this is the AOM pushing Google to do this as a proof of loyalty. Why wouldn't the same apply to Apple and Mozilla? In fact, if deprecating JPEG-XL is something the AOM wants, wouldn't you expect the browser vendors (all of whom are AOM founders) to all conspire to kill JPEG-XL? The right conspiracy theory here isn't even that AOM is forcing Google to do this as a proof of loyalty, the conspiracy theory which at least makes some semblance of sense is that Apple, Google and Mozilla are working to kill JPEG-XL to help their own image format win. But then it's just a group of companies acting in their own self interest and not some coercion, so I suppose that story isn't as sexy.
ksec 4y ago
>What the hell is up with the fierce hatred of the AOM on this site? Fierce hatred? Literally 95%+ ( if not 99% ) of HN called for AV1 and AVIF support in browser for the past 5+ years. AOM, Rust and RISC-V, any discussions of alternatives are deemed to be not worthy or evil.
- mort96 4y ago
  Any time the AOM is mentioned people keep talking about how evil AV1 is and how evil Google is for pushing AV1 through YouTube, and those comments are consistently among the most upvoted comments. I'd say it's safe to say there's a decent amount of hatred being expressed, and I just don't understand it. It's almost as if a decent chunk of the HN audience has a vested interest in eliminating open patent-free media codecs.
  - ksec 4y ago
    > HN audience has a vested interest in eliminating open patent-free media codecs. Well, first, because in the case of AV1, a self claimed patent free Video Codec is not, and never was, patent free. ( They stopped claiming to be one since around 2019 ). Second, the AV1 is evil or evil Google ( I dont think they said it but you could argue they do implied that ) you were referring to is very recent. To the point it was this month on HN. But yes, it has grown, quite a bit in the past year or so. Third, because a few HN audience actually cares about quality and trade offs. One could argue VP9 being a royalty free codec is actually a better fit than AV1. And despite being so called Open, Google isn't very receptive to criticism of AV1. Whether it was the codec itself or its development model. Had Google ( or AOM ) actually worked on AV2 [1] with all these in mind, may be there wouldn't be as much backlash. [1] AV2 was originally promised to be out by 2020.
    - mort96 4y ago
      I don't understand why you and everyone else put so much focus on Google. AV1 is developed by the AOM, so why would Google be receptive to criticism of AV1? Why is it Google's responsibility to develop AV2? People keep directing (well-deserved) criticism of Google towards AV1/AOM, and in your comment you're directing criticism of AV1/AOM towards Google. Is Amazon, Cisco, Intel, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, ARM, Netflix, Samsung, Facebook, etc etc. truly so insignificant in this that AOM and Google are basically one and the same? Why would that huge group of absolutely enormous companies let themselves be bossed around by Google? Regarding patents: my understanding is that AV1, like VP9 but unlike H.265, is unencumbered by patents, and you can use AV1 in products and FOSS projects without paying a license/royalties. Is this incorrect? If so, why has nobody updated Wikipedia? They still list AV1 as a royalty-free codec. If it truly is just as parent encumbered as H.265 then I agree with all the criticism, and our best bet is to stick with the very first version of H.264 (whose parents will expire next year) and JPEG. Because surely any patents which apply to AV1 also apply to its predecessors VP8 and VP9.

aargh_aargh 4y ago

AOM = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media