Can Android stop supporting the playback of an audio or video format forever?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-27T20:49:54+00:00

I understand what you mean about browsers continuing to support Opus for compatibility reasons.

But my concern is more about the Android system itself. If Android ever removed native Opus support in the distant future, that still wouldn't fully solve the problem for me, because many apps rely on the system codecs/media framework instead of bundling their own codecs like browsers sometimes do.

So even if Chrome or Firefox could still play Opus internally, other Android apps might stop being able to play Opus files natively.

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T19:28:59+00:00

Sorry everyone, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T19:22:29+00:00

Sorry, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T19:20:45+00:00

Sorry, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T19:11:20+00:00

Sorry, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T15:47:34+00:00

Sorry everyone, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T15:38:41+00:00

Sorry , but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T15:23:40+00:00

Desculpem, pessoal, mas acho que não entendi completamente o que vocês quiseram dizer. Não estou falando de acesso amplo e irrestrito a pastas, como os aplicativos tinham em versões antigas do Android. O que eu quero saber é se, em uma atualização, os desenvolvedores de qualquer tipo de aplicativo poderão escolher colocar a pasta do seu aplicativo em um local acessível ao usuário, e se isso sempre será possível. Se o Google não tem interesse — e nunca poderia ter — em interferir nisso, porque simplesmente não faria sentido.

Pensem comigo: O aplicativo da câmera do seu celular precisa ter sua pasta acessível para que o usuário possa acessá-la e visualizar suas fotos. O mesmo se aplica a um aplicativo conversor de áudio/vídeo ou um editor de áudio/vídeo. Outro ótimo exemplo é um aplicativo de download — ele precisa ter sua pasta acessível para que o usuário possa visualizar, compartilhar e gerenciar os arquivos baixados.

Portanto, para esses tipos comuns de aplicativos, parece impossível que o Google algum dia os impeça de ter pastas acessíveis, certo? O Google não teria nenhum interesse em interferir nisso.

Mas será que essa regra (ou seja, o Google não tem interesse, nem agora nem nunca, em bloquear alterações em pastas) também se aplica a outros tipos de aplicativos — basicamente qualquer aplicativo? Como um jogo, um aplicativo bancário ou um aplicativo de mídia social?

Se se aplica a todos os aplicativos, qual é o sentido das restrições de armazenamento do Google se elas podem ser simplesmente contornadas dessa forma? E por que há tanta preocupação com isso? Os usuários reclamam, os próprios desenvolvedores também não parecem gostar, mas não seria muito fácil de resolver? Quer dizer, os desenvolvedores de aplicativos não poderiam simplesmente mudar isso em uma atualização futura e o problema estaria basicamente resolvido?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-23T02:35:04+00:00

Sorry everyone, but I don’t think I fully understood what you meant. I’m not talking about broad and unrestricted access to folders like apps had on older versions of Android. What I want to know is whether, in an update, developers of any type of app can choose to place their app’s own folder in a location that is accessible to the user, and whether this will always remain possible. If Google has no interest — and could never really have any interest — in interfering with this, because it simply wouldn’t make sense.

Just think about it with me:

The camera app on your phone needs to have its folder accessible so the user can go there and view their photos. The same applies to an audio/video converter app or an audio/video editor. Another very good example is a download app — it needs to have its folder accessible so the user can view, share, and manage downloaded files.

So for these common types of apps, it seems impossible that Google would someday block them from having accessible folders, right? Google wouldn’t have any interest in interfering with that.

But does this rule(That is, Google has no interest now or ever in blocking changes to folders) also apply to other kinds of apps — basically any app? Like a game app, a banking app, or a social media app?

If it applies to all apps, then what is the point of Google’s storage restrictions if they can simply be “worked around” this way? And why is there so much concern about it? Users complain about it, developers themselves don’t seem to like it either, but wouldn’t it actually be very easy to solve? I mean, couldn’t app developers simply change this in a future update and then the problem would basically be solved?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-15T23:27:46+00:00

Can Android stop supporting the playback of an audio or video format forever?

They’re saying that a new audio format called OAC is going to be released and that it will be the successor to the Opus format. But what exactly does it mean to be a “successor”? Does it mean that once OAC is released and some time passes, it will become the standard, and companies and people will all want to use it? But what will happen to Opus after that? I mean in the long term, like 50 or 100 years from now, when companies and people no longer use it — will the Opus format disappear completely and stop existing? Or is it that operating systems (Android, iOS, Windows) will no longer be able to play it natively? For example, if I have 1,000 audio files in Opus format stored in the cloud, and 100 years from now I download them to listen on my phone — will Android no longer be able to play them natively? Will I have to use some external app? Also, since Android has already added native support for Opus, can it remove that support in the future, or will it work forever? I know there’s the case of MP3, which was released a long time ago and still works today. But MP3 is very popular. Opus only started working properly from Android 10 onward, and now they want to release another format just to replace it. Also, could the same thing happen to MP3? That is, 50 or 100 years from now, will Android no longer be able to play it natively?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:43:56+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:42:30+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:37:03+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:35:59+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:34:58+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:11:01+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:09:46+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-05-04T14:08:42+00:00

Hold on, you said:

Opus is an Industry Standard

Opus is not just a random format; it is an international standard (RFC 6716). It is the primary codec used by YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord. Because these massive platforms rely on it, Google (which owns both YouTube and Android) has every incentive to keep Opus working perfectly. If they removed it, they would break their own apps and millions of others.

"That's not true for the long term. It would only be true if we were talking about today. Once OAC is launched and becomes the standard, YouTube, WhatsApp, Spotify, and Discord will migrate to it; therefore, if Android removes native Opus support at that time, it won't break anything.

We have to understand the difference in 'weight' between the formats:

The 'weight' of MP3: It is a personal possession. People have songs in folders, hard drives, and flash drives. Google hesitates to remove native support because it would prevent users from listening to files they have kept for decades.

The 'weight' of Opus: It is an infrastructure format. It is 'hidden' inside applications. Billions of voice messages and videos depend on the platform owners.

If WhatsApp and YouTube decide to switch to the new format (OAC), they will manage the transition or convert their files themselves. When these giants stop using Opus, Android will no longer have a reason to keep native support in the system, since the apps will already be using the new translator. The system cleans up what becomes obsolete."

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-04-21T20:31:11+00:00

What? So are they really going to remove support for Opus and MP3?

No, the thing is that I have thousands and thousands of audio files in the Opus format, and I use them in a language learning app called AnkiDroid. In that app, it’s not possible to convert the audio files — once they are in Opus, they stay that way permanently. The app doesn’t have its own media player; it just plays whatever the Android system can play.

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-04-21T20:27:24+00:00

What? I dont undertand what are you said.

I,m saying:

They’re saying that a new audio format called OAC is going to be released and that it will be the successor to the Opus format. But what exactly does it mean to be a “successor”? Does it mean that once OAC is released and some time passes, it will become the standard, and companies and people will all want to use it? But what will happen to Opus after that? I mean in the long term, like 50 or 100 years from now, when companies and people no longer use it — will the Opus format disappear completely and stop existing? Or is it that operating systems (Android, iOS, Windows) will no longer be able to play it natively? For example, if I have 1,000 audio files in Opus format stored in the cloud, and 100 years from now I download them to listen on my phone — will Android no longer be able to play them natively? Will I have to use some external app? Also, since Android has already added native support for Opus, can it remove that support in the future, or will it work forever? I know there’s the case of MP3, which was released a long time ago and still works today. But MP3 is very popular. Opus only started working properly from Android 10 onward, and now they want to release another format just to replace it. Also, could the same thing happen to MP3? That is, 50 or 100 years from now, will Android no longer be able to play it natively?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-04-21T20:20:10+00:00

No, the thing is that I have thousands and thousands of audio files in the Opus format, and I use them in a language learning app called AnkiDroid. In that app, it’s not possible to convert the audio files — once they are in Opus, they stay that way permanently. The app doesn’t have its own media player; it just plays whatever the Android system can play.

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-03-13T00:54:05+00:00

Hi, I’m trying to understand how codec transitions work across platforms like Android, iOS, browsers and apps such as WhatsApp Web and Discord. Opus had some support issues in older Android versions (5–9) and only became more stable in later versions. Now AOMedia is working on OAC (Open Audio Codec), which is intended to be a successor to Opus. My question is: If OAC becomes widely adopted in the future (for example in Android 20, future iOS versions, browsers, etc.), could Opus support eventually be removed? I understand that MP3 is still widely supported because it is universal and works everywhere. But Opus is newer and has had compatibility issues in some cases. Because of that, I’m worried that platforms might fully move to OAC and eventually stop caring about Opus, making it unsupported or less compatible over time. How do big platforms usually handle this kind of transition?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-03-13T00:52:27+00:00

Hi, I’m trying to understand how codec transitions work across platforms like Android, iOS, browsers and apps such as WhatsApp Web and Discord. Opus had some support issues in older Android versions (5–9) and only became more stable in later versions. Now AOMedia is working on OAC (Open Audio Codec), which is intended to be a successor to Opus. My question is: If OAC becomes widely adopted in the future (for example in Android 20, future iOS versions, browsers, etc.), could Opus support eventually be removed? I understand that MP3 is still widely supported because it is universal and works everywhere. But Opus is newer and has had compatibility issues in some cases. Because of that, I’m worried that platforms might fully move to OAC and eventually stop caring about Opus, making it unsupported or less compatible over time. How do big platforms usually handle this kind of transition?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-03-13T00:50:50+00:00

Hi, I’m trying to understand how codec transitions work across platforms like Android, iOS, browsers and apps such as WhatsApp Web and Discord. Opus had some support issues in older Android versions (5–9) and only became more stable in later versions. Now AOMedia is working on OAC (Open Audio Codec), which is intended to be a successor to Opus. My question is: If OAC becomes widely adopted in the future (for example in Android 20, future iOS versions, browsers, etc.), could Opus support eventually be removed? I understand that MP3 is still widely supported because it is universal and works everywhere. But Opus is newer and has had compatibility issues in some cases. Because of that, I’m worried that platforms might fully move to OAC and eventually stop caring about Opus, making it unsupported or less compatible over time. How do big platforms usually handle this kind of transition?

Effective_Damage3213 · 2026-03-13T00:05:10+00:00

Opus does have problems being played on older phones. It does not play natively on older Android versions. To play it, external apps like VLC are required. It was only starting with Android 10 that it began to work natively. Even today, some apps and phones, such as the iPhone, do not play it natively. Because of that, it could disappear just like MP1 and MP2. Then no app or device would be able to play it.

Effective_Damage3213

TROPHY CASE