It is both as you say, but the problem lies in its patents that are basically against development of competing codecs, so it holds back innovation in the name of keeping Google and the other collaborating big tech companies at the top.
That doesn't take away any of its great technical merits, it's just that it is quite unethical
QuazarOmega
joined 2 years ago
But does it have the same virality of AV1 is what I'm asking?
AV1 implementations are open source, but you might have your licence revoked by AOM making it effectively a timed bomb, since it could happen at any moment, in the worst case when AV1 is everywhere. Also it makes building on top of it a legal risk because AOM still holds the patents, I say risk because you may live in a country that doesn't give a crap about software patents, so you would be safe to a certain extent
Oh, I wasn't aware, can you tell me in what way, for AOM it's about patenting parts of the codec that have been developed by its participants, what about them?
Absolutely true, but let's just say that setting up the conditions to stifle the competition isn't very nice of them
It's all good!
Oh gosh, I think you're actually right, I thought that JXL didn't have any such restrictions, but those have been put in place by none other than Google, I look like fool now don't I? Lol
There is still something that I fail to understand then, what is the real reason why Google scrapped JXL support from Chromium if it wasn't to boost AVIF? To further complicate the matter, on the Wikipedia page there is mention of patent concerns only on AV1 (and consequently AVIF) and not on JXL. I was basing my arguments on the links I posted alongside the image, but I guess my research was incomplete