The problem AV1 was built to address
Video codecs are not only technical designs. Many of the best-known ones are covered by patents, and companies that ship them in products, browsers or streaming services may need licences. For a long time the dominant web and broadcast codecs, such as H.264 and later HEVC, were distributed through patent pools that collect fees and set terms.
That arrangement works for many businesses, but it creates uncertainty for others. A browser maker, an open-source project or a large streaming service may worry about the cost of fees at huge scale, or about how terms might change. The idea behind an open, royalty-free codec is to remove that uncertainty so that anyone can build, ship and play the format without negotiating a licence.
Where AV1 came from
AV1 was developed by the Alliance for Open Media, a consortium formed in 2015. Its members came from different parts of the video industry and included browser makers, chip companies, cloud providers and streaming services. The version 1.0 bitstream specification was released in 2018.
AV1 drew on earlier work from several organisations, including Google’s VP9 line of development, Mozilla’s Daala research and Cisco’s Thor codec. Pooling these efforts and agreeing on a common licensing approach was as significant as the technology itself. Members committed to licensing the patents they hold that are essential to the format on royalty-free terms.
What “royalty-free” does and does not mean
It is worth being careful here. Royalty-free means implementers are not asked to pay fees to use the specification. It does not guarantee that no third party anywhere will ever assert a patent claim, and no codec can promise that. The Alliance describes its approach as a licence plus a defence mechanism for members, and it carried out a patent review during development. Whether any particular claim could arise in future is a legal question, and rules and outcomes vary by country.
How AV1 compares
The main reason AV1 attracted attention is compression efficiency. Compared with H.264, AV1 can typically reach similar visual quality at a substantially lower bitrate. Compared with HEVC and VP9, it is usually reported to be somewhat better, though the exact saving depends on the content, the encoder, the settings and the way quality is measured. Treat any single headline percentage with caution, because results differ from one test to the next.
Efficiency comes with trade-offs:
- Encoding is demanding. AV1 analyses many more options than older codecs, so software encoding can be slow, especially at high resolutions. Encoders have improved steadily, and faster presets exist, but there is still a cost in time or compute.
- Decoding needs support. Playing AV1 in software is possible but can be heavy on weaker devices. Smooth, power-efficient playback generally relies on hardware decoders, which have appeared in newer chips but not in older devices.
- Tooling matures gradually. Editing software, capture devices, cameras and broadcast equipment tend to adopt newer codecs later than web playback does.
Where it fits in practice
AV1 is most attractive where the same video is watched many times, because a smaller file saves bandwidth on every view. That is why large streaming and video-sharing platforms have been among its most visible users. The extra encoding effort is paid once, while the savings repeat for each viewer, which also helps with overall streaming costs.
It is less compelling for a one-off upload or a quick recording, where encoding time matters more than bandwidth. For live video, the heavy encoding requirements have historically been a limitation, though hardware encoders in newer devices are narrowing that gap.
It is also worth remembering that a platform often converts what you upload into several formats. You usually do not need to deliver AV1 yourself for viewers to benefit from it.
Compatibility and fallbacks
Because device support is uneven, services that offer AV1 typically also keep older versions of the same video. The player picks a format the viewer’s device can handle, which is part of how adaptive bitrate streaming works. Someone on a recent phone or browser may receive AV1, while someone on an older TV receives H.264. Keeping several versions costs storage, but it avoids leaving viewers with a video that will not play.
What is still uncertain
Several questions are open. How quickly hardware support spreads depends on device replacement cycles. How competing codecs, including successors to HEVC, will fare is unclear. And the licensing picture around video codecs generally remains complicated, with multiple groups and approaches. AV1 shows that a broad industry coalition can produce a competitive royalty-free codec, but it does not make the other formats disappear.
Takeaway
AV1 matters less as a single product than as evidence of a shift: major companies chose to cooperate on an open specification rather than rely only on licensed formats. For viewers, the effect is mostly invisible, appearing as sharper video at lower data use. For anyone choosing a codec, the sensible approach is to weigh efficiency against encoding time and device support, and to keep a widely compatible option available.