I understand it is the most efficient (unless h265, which is patented, is better).
My point about YouTube is it gives Google power. They can say “we’re doing this with billions of hours of video” and people must follow. They can demand chips that encode faster. Or decode faster. Or say “No YouTube app on your custom gizmo device without VP1 support.”
They have the power to force changes in the market the way a startup or even Microsoft don’t. Those two would have to convince people the change is worth it to everyone. Google just does it, and others follow because it’s now there.
I’m basically arguing Google abused their position as opposed to Apple.
Using open standards can almost never be abuse because nobody controls it. The reason Google wants it benefits everyone who streams video. MV3 is a better example. It's technically "open" but it is removing functionality. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that Google has power. But someone always has power; in the tech world it's mostly uses for profit. In this case it happens to benefit everyone and we should be happy about it.
Isn't HEVC comparable? It may lack some sheer bandwidth efficiency, but it seems to make up for that with less compute cost. And the entire M1 line has hardware and software HEVC support.
edit: Oh, you said royalty-free. Fair I guess? I guess I'd be pretty annoyed if I decided to encode some personal project I ended up making money from with my M1's HEVC encoder and got dinged by royalty police.
