Software patents aren't an issue in much of the world; the reason I thought there wasn't much of a career in codec development was that it was obvious that it needed to move down into custom ASICs to be power-efficient, at which point you can no longer develop new ones until people replace all their hardware.

▲

rowanG077 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

Software patents aren't an issue in most of the world. Codecs however are used all over the world. No one is going to use a codec that is illegal to use in the US and EU.

▲

astrange 8 days ago | parent [-]

EU would be one of the places that doesn't have software patents, which is why VLC is based there.

	▲	rowanG077 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not that simple. Software patents exists in the EU, the requirements are much more strict though. For example Netflix was ordered to cease their use of H265 in germany: https://www.nexttv.com/news/achtung-baby-netflix-loses-paten...

▲

dylan604 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

By the time software is robust enough to make it worth while to be placed into hardware, it's pretty damn efficient. For something like ASICs, you could at least upgrade the firmware with new code, but what about Apple's chips that do the decoding? Can they be upgraded, or does that mean needing to wait for the M++ chip?

	▲	astrange 8 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The encoder side can be upgraded, but typically decoding isn't flexible enough to add an entirely new codec to it. Of course, you can design it to be as flexible as you want; but at one end of that you just have a regular CPU again.
	▲	TheTon 8 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Typically you wait for the new chip. Sometimes there are hybrid coders that can use some of the resources on the chip and some shader code to handle new codecs or codec features after the fact, but you pay a power and performance penalty to use these.