I guess it comes to the point, that the companies involved want working hardware decoders rather sooner than later. So saving time on implementing hardware decoders is a huge deal. the question, I cannot answer, is: how much better could hardware decoders get, if they make them from scratch? (in other words. is it worth the effort?)
One actual question, I have, is, are Xiph/Mozilla still working on Daala? (will Daala ship on it's own one day?)
Not that I want that to happen. One codec is better than several. But it's interesting to know, whether they still consider doing it for some reason
About
:
http://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisi...nd-a-solution/
Nice read, thx for sharing it
Moving away from profiles to tool-based encoders doesn't seem to be a good option(IMO), since it complicates the encoder/decoder situation a lot more
especially since all tools have to work together somehow.
it's kind of stupid though, that big parts of the industry only saw their own profits instead of the bigger picture.
well, it's their own pile of shards now.
AOM has chances to win.
I wonder what the broadcast industry will choose in 15-30 years. Or the movie making industry, in-case there is a new type of disc format. ^^
About his last paragraph:
Do we actually need a better, new codec after av1 and opus for media?
(at least on the web, the web needed an open codec for several reasons, even if the model of implementing such a codec isn't profitabel at first
this might not keep broadcasters and the media industry and so on from paying royalties for better codecs; they have the perfect business model to do so after all (unlike the web))