While funny, that's not really what I would call accurate. Users get reduced data consumption, potentially higher quality selection if the bandwidth now allows for a higher resolution to be streamed, and possibly lower disk usage should they decide to offline the videos.Better codecs are an overall win for everyone involved.
dsnr|4 months ago
I don’t remember ever watching a movie and wishing for a better codec, in the last 10 years
ubercow13|4 months ago
toast0|4 months ago
I do wish ATSC1 would adopt a newer codec (and maybe they will), most of the broadcasters cram too many subchannels in their 20mbps and a better codec would help for a while. ATSC3 has a better video codec and more efficient physical encoding, but it also DRM and a new proprietary audio codec, so it's not helpful for me.
izacus|4 months ago
calcifer|4 months ago
They also get increased power usage, lesser battery life, higher energy bills, and potentially earlier device failures.
> Better codecs are an overall win for everyone involved.
Right.
whatevaa|4 months ago
Mobile/power constrained devices don't use software decoding, that just a path to miserable experience. Hardware decoding is basically required.
Meanwhile my desktop can SW decode 4k youtube with 3% reported cpu usage.
testdelacc1|4 months ago
I like how you padded this list by repeating the same thing thrice. Like, increased power usage is obviously going to lead to higher energy bills.
And it’s especially weird because it’s not true? The current SOTA codec AV1 is at a sweet spot for both compression and energy demand (https://arxiv.org/html/2402.09001v1). Consumers are not worse off!
badpun|4 months ago