Quote:
Originally Posted by kieranrk
I agree to an extent but I don't think the addressable market will be anywhere as big as with MPEG-2 or AVC. Only green-field deployments and 4K are going to use it for DTH broadcasting, though a few European governments are mandating it.
|
For OTA, broadcasting, sure. Huge decoder switching costs, which is why most of that is MPEG-2. South Korea has already done two rounds of OTA HEVC 4K already, though.
I think OTA is a pretty small and shrinking slice of viewership, though.
Quote:
|
Only web (including mobile) are going to be big consumers of HEVC and arguably the web doesn't have serious video bandwidth restrictions anyway.
|
That is an argument you'd have to actually make. Until everyone in a household can reliably get 15 Mbps streams
simultaneously, the web has serious bandwidth restrictions.
Quote:
|
HEVC won't bring 10-bit mainstream. There's a huge push against it from hardware manufacturers.
|
Citation? That's not what I'm hearing for living-room devices. Mobile doesn't seem to have nearly as much taste for 10-bit, certainly.
Quote:
|
This is definitely not the case for operator-loaned STBs.
|
Huge switching costs there, which is why they're mostly still getting MPEG-2 anyway. The bandwidth savings of MPEG-2 -> HEVC could make STB replacement cost-effective, however.
But video decoder license fees are a small fraction of a STB's cost, and are a lot higher and uncapped for MPEG-2 anyway. If license fees were a big deal, people would have stopped shipping MPEG-2 decode a long time ago (note that it's not in Win8 by default now). VC-1 and H.264 were both much, much cheaper at the time.