Google, Meta and Vodafone want smartphone-makers to reduce their bandwidth bills
- Reference: 1758780774
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/09/25/google_meta_vodafone_av1_smartphone/
- Source link:
The trio voiced their idea in a [1]White Paper published on Wednesday, in which they point out that 70 to 80 percent of mobile traffic is video, and around 75 percent of new smartphones are low-end or mid-range devices priced at between $30 and $600.
Due to the costs associated with network upgrades, Vodafone is exploring ways to manage traffic growth
The White Paper also canvasses video codecs, noting that compression used in the AV1 codec is 30 percent more efficient than the VP9 codec, which in turn is 30 percent more efficient than H.264.
Better compression reduces the size of video files, which is welcome for owners of cheap smartphones because it means watching their favourite stuff will consume less of their download allowances.
The White Paper also admits that efficient video codecs benefit Google, Meta, and Vodafone.
[2]
“Due to the costs associated with network capacity upgrades, Vodafone is exploring ways to manage traffic growth,” the white paper states. “A key way to achieve that is by using more efficient video codecs.”
[3]
[4]
Meta and YouTube reveal “We regularly optimize our content delivery networks, including sophisticated content caching to optimize network efficiency and reduce traffic load.”
Less traffic reduces costs. And given Meta and YouTube make a lot of money selling ads that appear alongside the videos they serve to customers, if more smartphones can use AV1, and their owners stream more video, it’s a win for the tech giants.
[5]
Or as Meta and YouTube put it: “This is an opportunity to further collaborate among content providers and network operators to align with chipset manufacturers and device operating system developers to guarantee the best quality of experience to end-users, while ensuring optimal utilization of network resources with reduced congestion.”
“And for content providers, one key way to achieve this is by serving higher quality videos that use less data. When users can stream their favorite shows or movies in crisp, clear video without worrying about buffering or running out of data, they are more likely to be satisfied with their experience.”
To make that happen, the White Paper suggests that chipmakers should add hardware support for AV1 to the system-on-chips (SoCs) they design for use in modest smartphones.
[6]
“In future, hardware decoder availability within middle tier SoCs such as the MediaTek Dimensity 6000 and 7000 series, Qualcomm Snapdragon 6, or Samsung Exynos 1500 line would be a positive development,” the White Paper argues.
[7]FFmpeg 6.1 drops a Heaviside dose of codec magic
[8]Whisper it: FFmpeg 8 can now subtitle your videos on the fly
[9]Photoshop FOSS alternative GIMP wakes up from 7-year coma with version 3.0
[10]Lenovo seeks to render Nokia's H.264 patents unenforceable, claims it misled standards bodies
But the document also suggests chipmakers are prioritizing AI features, not hardware support for video codecs.
“We note that SoC revisions are slowing down and it is common to see newer phones based around SoCs from prior years,” the document states. “Additionally, SoC vendors are focusing more on increased AI capabilities through more powerful NPUs, which leaves less space on the silicon die for decoders.”
The three companies behind the White Paper therefore point out “Video playback is still an important mobile phone use case and increased hardware AV1 availability allows users to benefit from an improved video playback quality, lower data usage and increased battery life.”
The trio allow that some in the smartphone ecosystem won’t implement hardware support for AV1, but point out that it’s also possible to support the codec with software – and that it produces pretty good results. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://engineering.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Meta-AV1-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aNUSs_BCKIK3zPZ6F9YskQAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aNUSs_BCKIK3zPZ6F9YskQAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aNUSs_BCKIK3zPZ6F9YskQAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aNUSs_BCKIK3zPZ6F9YskQAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aNUSs_BCKIK3zPZ6F9YskQAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/24/ffmpeg_6_1/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/28/ffmpeg_8_huffman/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/20/gimp_3_and_photogimp/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/lenovo_seeks_to_render_nokias/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
But that's not why they want it
Let's cut down on useless bandwidth usage
They don't want to use fewer bits per video and thus reduce traffic. They want to use fewer bits per video and maintain the same traffic allowing watching more videos - so more ads can be delivered. In other words, they want to make doomscrolling more efficient.
Re: To be fair
To be fair
Will the manufacturers listen?
Most of us come from the world of software, margins are high, marginal costs are very low, we ship out something that we know isn't finished, confident we can update or patch, and where out output is offered without any warranty or recourse through the legal magic of a licence agreement, and we don't pay the users costs of rework for software fixes. For a hardware maker it's close to the opposite. Margins are (excepting Apple and Nvidia) really low, marginal costs are high; the product has to work correctly under consumer protection laws or contract law, if it goes wrong they are on the hook for warranty or repair costs, if it does need fixing under warranty then that usually wipes out the entire profit margin. All of which means most manufacturers are highly conservative, and hugely averse to anything that adds tiny, tiny amounts to the manufacturing cost, even where a customer may think the additional cost trivial - not to mention that markups through distribution chain magnify tiny cost differences. That's why AV1 is better supported on high end phones, where the makers chase "specification width" and much less widely supported on the cheaper ones.
All of which leads me to the conclusion that makers won't be quickly persuaded by a white paper. If telcos and content companies want to push AV1, they need to create consumer pull for it, by marketing AV1 as superior to other technology. And that will be a challenge as most customers neither know nor care what codecs are or do, and they'd need to use simple and less accurate terms like "faster".
Re: Will the manufacturers listen?
Are customers actually calling for AI on their phones? I suspect that there are two groups of people, those who don't want AI, and those who want it and don't know or caare whether it's running locally or in the cloud. Neither group need the NPUs that are being added to just about everything, but the manufacturers are adding them anyway.
Re: Will the manufacturers listen?
with AV1, you can see the benefit for a user who is watching something and using their data allowance.
Only issue now is that you can get silly GB allowances for not a lot that people no longer care, and that is they have not hotspotted to any free wifi that is provided by shops, cafes, health services, etc
Users at home do not care, it is always free and most non techies - as you point out, do not care
More bribery needed
If Google can afford to slip Apple & Mozilla billions to direct traffic its way, surely it can do the same to induce low-end SOC suppliers to support the codec du jour. I'm sure Meta & Voda would chip in …
we all agree, less data usage for a video stream is good, but also consider the devices that don't support hardware AV1, the software decoders have to be good too for older devices that will still be in use for years to come and of course licence free!
To be fair
Yes. I absolutely agree. We are, with the Internet, at the same stage Borkzilla was when RAM hit the GB range. Programmers stopped worrying about tight code and started gobbling up resources like it was candy, because it was there.
Today, bandwidth is like candy. You create an app and want telemetry on it ? Go ahead, people are on WiFi with FTTH, so who cares ? On YouTube everyone wants you to Like & Subscribe, so they can send you notifications - more bandwidth usage - and it's always been like that. What happened to good ol' bookmarks ? I don't need no stinkin' notifications, I know where you are and I'm not Pavlov's dog.
Let's cut down on useless bandwidth usage, I agree wholeheartedly.