zlacker

>>Charle+(OP)
I understand that sometimes the HN titles get edited to be less descriptive and more generic in order to match the actual article title.

What’s the logic with changing the title here from the actual article title it was originally submitted with “AV1 — Now Powering 30% of Netflix Streaming” to the generic and not at all representative title it currently has “AV1: a modern open codec”? That is neither the article title nor representative of the article content.

>>notato+ik
Though in the original title AV1 could be anything if you don't know it's a codec. How about:

"AV1 open video codec now powers 30% of Netflix viewing, adds HDR10+ and film grain synthesis"

>>pants2+co
AV1 is fine as-is. Plenty of technical titles on HN would need to be googled if you didn't know it. Even in yours, HDR10+ "could be anything if you don't know it". Play this game if you want, but it's unwindable. The only people who care about AV1 already know what it is.

>>nerdsn+Jq
Well, I'm interested in AV1 as a videographer but hadn't heard of it before. Without 'codec' in the title I would have thought it was networking related.

Re: HDR - not the same thing. HDR has been around for decades and every TV in every electronics store blasts you with HDR10 demos. It's well known. AV1 is extremely niche and deserves 2 words to describe it.

>>pants2+Ps
AV1 has been around for a decade (well, it was released 7 years ago but the Alliance for Open Media was formed a decade ago).

It's fine that you haven't heard of it before (you're one of today's lucky 10,000!) but it really isn't that niche. YouTube and Netflix (from TFA) also started switching to AV1 several years ago, so I would expect it to have similar name recognition to VP9 or WebM at this point. My only interaction with video codecs is having to futz around with ffmpeg to get stuff to play on my TV, and I heard about AV1 a year or two before it was published.