There's no point supporting these parasitic business models. Use royalty-free video and audio formats.<p>AV1 for video: <a href="https://aomedia.org/specifications/av1/" rel="nofollow">https://aomedia.org/specifications/av1/</a><p>And Opus for audio: <a href="https://opus-codec.org/" rel="nofollow">https://opus-codec.org/</a>
AV1 / Opus where we can. But H264 is far better supported. For example, Safari doesn't include a software AV1 decoder. So AV1 videos only work in safari on M3 or later laptops, and iPhone 15 or later phones.<p>H264 is the compatibility king.<p><a href="https://caniuse.com/av1" rel="nofollow">https://caniuse.com/av1</a>
Safari, or better, macOS and iOS include a software AV1 decoder (libdav1d), but it's used only to decode avif, and to generate file previews in Finder.
Dolby just sued Snapchat over patents for using AV1:<p><a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/111865-dolby-sues-snap-over-video-compression-patent-claims.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.techspot.com/news/111865-dolby-sues-snap-over-vi...</a>
AV1 lacks hw support…
My laptop has hardware AV1 encoding and decoding. My TV has AV1 decoding. My phone has AV1 decoding. None of these devices are particularly new.<p>And don't underestimate dav1d (<a href="https://www.videolan.org/projects/dav1d.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.videolan.org/projects/dav1d.html</a>). You can comfortably play AV1 video in software on your phone. Try it with VLC.
It's coming along nicely <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Hardware_encoding_and_decoding_support" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Hardware_encoding_and_deco...</a><p>Also decoding on a reasonably powerful (non-accelerated) cpu is fast enough for 1080p, not ideal for battery life but still.
“Access Advance and Avanci have published rates for a pool asserting content royalties across AVC, HEVC, VP9, VVC, and AV1 that could push major platforms toward nine-figure annual exposure.”
Yes, they've made claims on AV1, claims that have never been tested in court.<p>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.<p>Show me the court case they've won that validates their claims on AV1.
AV1 was created by a consortium of some of the biggest tech companies in the world, and "all technology was vetted in a rigorous patent review process before being integrated into the final spec."[0]<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=124134" rel="nofollow">https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art...</a>
I was going to suggest you missed vorbis ogg. So I went looking for a link, I found out this:<p>> Since 2013, the Xiph.Org Foundation has stated that the use of Vorbis should be deprecated in favor of the Opus codec<p>I never heard of Opus, so some links:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)</a><p>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 ?
Ogg is a container format. It contains audio and video tracks: <a href="https://www.xiph.org/ogg/" rel="nofollow">https://www.xiph.org/ogg/</a><p>It's like Matroska: <a href="https://www.matroska.org/what_is_matroska.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.matroska.org/what_is_matroska.html</a><p>Or MP4: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format</a>
Ogg is the container, Vorbis is the audio codec, and colloquially people just called Vorbis-encoded audio "ogg" because of the ogg container.<p>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.
> and colloquially people just called Vorbis-encoded audio "ogg" because of the ogg container.<p>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'.