> People don’t develop video codecs for fun like they do with software. And the reason is that it’s almost impossible to do without support from the industry.

Hmm, let me check my notes:

    - Quite OK Image format: https://qoiformat.org/
    - Quite OK Audio format: https://qoaformat.org/
    - LAME (ain't a MP3 Encoder): https://lame.sourceforge.io/
    - Xiph family of codecs: https://xiph.org/

For example, FLAC is a worst of all worlds codec for industry to back. A streamable, seekable, hardware-implementable, error-resistant, lossless codec with 8 channels, 32 bit samples, and up to 640KHz sample rate, with no DRM support. Yet we have it, and it rules consumer lossless audio while giggling and waving at everyone.

On the other hand, we have LAME. An encoder which also uses psycho-acoustic techniques to improve the resulting sound quality and almost everyone is using it, because the closed source encoders generally sound lamer than LAME in the same bit-rates. Remember, MP3 format doesn't have an reference encoder. If the decoder can read the file and it sounds the way you expect, then you have a valid encoder. There's no spec for that.

> Are you really saying that patents are preventing people from writing the next great video codec?

Yes, yes, and, yes. MPEG and similar groups openly threatened free and open codecs by opening "patent portfolio forming calls" to create portfolios to fight with these codecs, because they are terrified of being deprived of their monies.

If patents and license fees are not a problem for these guys, can you tell me why all professional camera gear which can take videos only come with "personal, non-profit and non-professional" licenses on board, and you have pay blanket extort ^H^H^H^H^H licensing fees to these bodies to take a video you can monetize?

For the license disclaimers in camera manuals, see [0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42736254