[recursive]

At this point, I don't think it's too fringey a conspiracy theory that Apple is opposed to the advancement of web technology, while trying to plausibly appear to be in favor of it. Their motive would be obvious. Keep the native app experience superior.

[AnonC]

I personally think Apple is one company that's able to keep Google in check in ways that no other company or government can do. Safari is a whip that Apple seems to use to good effect. Content blockers in Safari as a native implementation (though one could argue on the demerits of how it's implemented), advanced tracking protection, dragging its feet on PWA support, support for Google created/promoted formats, etc. These could be argued as immoral behavior, but there are some benefits to everyone in not having Google control everything.

[jamil7]

Or webkit is just a smaller team prioritising other features over every random, new API and standard that the Chrome team comes up with and later abandons.

[ocdtrekkie]

That's pretty fringey. Given that Apple devices still use the web a lot, including inside apps.

[recursive]

Easily explained! Apple prefers you to use native widgets to make your app harder to port.

[colejohnson66]

That argument could be used for Qt, GNOME, macOS, or Windows. And besides, React Native is a thing.

[recursive]

Qt and GNOME are released by an organization that also maintains a popular browser. Microsoft recently chromified their flagship browser (despite my personal feelings on the matter). I could be wrong, but I don't think React Native gets any support from Apple.

[seba_dos1]

> Qt and GNOME are released by an organization that also maintains a popular browser.

I think you meant "aren't"?

[izacus]

They're also financially benefiting by pushing competing HEIC and HEVC formats since they're patent owners and collect royalties for big scale implementations. In light of that, it's not surprising they refuse to support royalty free formats.

[ksec]

Apple would paid more for HEVC royalty than they receive, or a break even. I doubt royalty payment is an incentive of any kind to Apple. But much rather patent protection.

[izacus]

I work in video streaming business and I haven't seen anything to support this (if anything, they were exempt from royalties from their own patent pool), can you please link something that confirms this?

[ksec]

I think for Clarity I need some explaining. I dont have any hard data or fact, and I doubt anyone would have because of the sensitive nature.

But it is just some Numbers from Facts and Data put into to it and guess work.

If we look into the list of patents from HEVC from three patents pool, along with those missing such as Technicolor, the list from Apple is comparatively very tiny. As a matter of fact I would be surprised if they even get 2% from it given hundreds of companies are in the license pool.

Lets assume Velos Media is in good faith ( FRAND ) and charges similar to MPEG-LA and HEVC Advance, the total is estimated to be capped at roughly $100M per Enterprise annually. Despite a huge market increase in volume since H.264 era, the amount of Consumer Electronics companies ( Enterprise ) is actually not growing. While we are shipping ~1.2B Smartphone every year, ( A market that doesn't even exist during H.264 invention ) Huawei, Apple, Samsung represent over 50% of the Smartphone unit volume already. Top 10 vendor represent close to 90%. Once you factor in Tablet, PC, are in similar situation and many overlap ( since they are by the same Enterprise and count towards the cap ). The total addressable market from HEVC patents is at best $3B from large volume vendor ( $100M Cap x 30 Enterprise ) . You tie in the loose end from other electronics, Blu Ray disc at $2B per year. You are looking at a Total of ~$5B.

Ignoring the 2% Apple exempt from their own products and they actually paid 100M annually. $100M is exactly within the 2% they received from ~5B pool.

Generally Speaking in Reality Apple has many cross licensing agreement with like Samsung, Qualcomm and LG etc they are highly unlikely to be paying anywhere close to the Cap as they will all be exempt from it. And Apple would also not be getting anywhere close to 2% mark, but the argument is still the same.

[philistine]

Apple supports formats they can hardware accelerate. They have historically picked one format to accelerate in hardware (H.264, now its HEVC), and pay the royalties with the format they pick.

[izacus]

Apple SoCs have VP9 hardware acceleration support already and they still won't support them to push HEVC.

Also there's no reason for them not to HW accelerate WebP with the same system (the frames are compatible) but they chose not to, so I'm not quite sure what your point here is.