Unfortunately its implementation is spread through tons of hardware. Even my camera uses h265 for stills, as HEIF files, whereas not a single one I know of will do AVIFs or AV1 video (which is complex to implement as an ASIC).
One could say h265 takes the “easy” way to encode video, whereas AV1 (and presumably AV2) have to go out of their way and pursue complex alternatives to avoid patents.
I wouldn’t say AV1 is really settled as royalty-free. Patent trolls have bullied all the major streamers into paying the same for AV1 the same as H265, and are already prepping to do the same for AV2.
Do you mean, the licensing, or the implementation?
The licensing.
Legally risky, too.
Unfortunately its implementation is spread through tons of hardware. Even my camera uses h265 for stills, as HEIF files, whereas not a single one I know of will do AVIFs or AV1 video (which is complex to implement as an ASIC).
One could say h265 takes the “easy” way to encode video, whereas AV1 (and presumably AV2) have to go out of their way and pursue complex alternatives to avoid patents.
I wouldn’t say AV1 is really settled as royalty-free. Patent trolls have bullied all the major streamers into paying the same for AV1 the same as H265, and are already prepping to do the same for AV2.
True.
They tried, though. That was at least the premise of AV1.
Perhaps that’s why AV2 has steam behind it; it’s a “second attempt” to avoid the patent trolls.