The next phase of video delivery is being defined by execution. After several years of standards development and early experimentation, organizations across the video ecosystem are now working through the practical realities of deploying next-generation compression technologies at scale.
This transition is playing out unevenly. While Versatile Video Coding (VVC) has been widely recognized for its efficiency and versatility, adoption has progressed more gradually as content providers, device manufacturers, and platform operators align around timing, cost, and interoperability. At the same time, video consumption continues to expand across mobile, streaming, and broadcast environments, increasing pressure on network infrastructure and delivery economics.
These dynamics are shaping the 2026 agenda for the Media Coding Industry Forum. The organization is placing greater emphasis on implementation support, interoperability, and ecosystem coordination, as companies move from evaluating VVC to deploying it.
In a recent executive video interview conducted for journalists, Justin Ridge discussed the current state of VVC adoption, the role of MC-IF in enabling deployment, and how organizations should think about codec strategy as the market evolves.
Here is what he had to say:
Q. As we move through 2026, how would you characterize where we are in the VVC adoption cycle? Are we still in early-stage evaluation, or are we beginning to see more tangible signs of deployment?
Ridge: VVC is still in what I would describe as a growing phase, but the signals we are seeing today are more concrete than they were even a year or two ago. The most important indicator is that platform-level support is beginning to appear, particularly in mobile ecosystems. Those types of decisions are not made speculatively. They reflect a belief that VVC will be used and that there will be demand for it.
At the same time, we are not yet at a point where you can describe the market as having reached critical mass. There are deployments and there is activity, but it is not yet widespread enough that every content provider or platform operator feels compelled to move immediately. So we are in that transition phase where the groundwork is being laid and confidence is building, but scale is still developing.
Q. What continues to hold the market back from reaching that next level of adoption?
Ridge: The biggest factor is coordination across the ecosystem. Content providers want to know that there is a sufficient base of devices that can consume VVC content. Device manufacturers want to know that there will be enough content to justify supporting VVC in their products. That interdependence has challenged the pace of expansion.
What we are seeing now is gradual progress on both sides. There is more VVC capability appearing in silicon and devices than many people realize, and there is increasing interest from content providers. But until those two sides align more visibly at scale, adoption will continue to build incrementally rather than all at once.
Q. As organizations think more strategically, how should they position VVC within their broader codec roadmap?
Ridge: It is important to move away from the idea that there will be a single codec that addresses every requirement. In practice, most organizations are going to operate in multi-codec environments. The question becomes how to use each codec effectively based on the use case, the device landscape, and the time horizon.
VVC is clearly the most advanced option available today in terms of efficiency and versatility, so it has an important role to play. But organizations also need to consider compatibility and reach, which means other codecs will remain part of the strategy. Taking a pragmatic, use-case-driven approach is the most effective way to think about it.
Q. As companies move from evaluating VVC to actually deploying it, what are the most important operational priorities they need to address?
Ridge: The focus is very much on implementation and interoperability. It is one thing to understand the benefits of a codec in theory, and it is another to integrate it into a production environment. That involves encoding workflows, delivery systems, device compatibility, and ensuring consistent performance across all of those components.
Organizations are asking very practical questions. How do we implement this? How do we test it? How do we ensure that it behaves as expected across different devices and platforms? Those are the kinds of challenges that come to the forefront as adoption progresses.
Q. How is MC-IF helping to reduce that complexity for its members?
Ridge: We are putting a strong emphasis on creating resources that directly support implementation. That includes test bitstreams, test vectors, and implementation guidelines that help companies validate their deployments. The idea is to reduce uncertainty and give organizations confidence that VVC will work in their environment.
We also have a dedicated focus on interoperability. It is not enough for an implementation to work in isolation. It needs to behave consistently across different devices and systems. That is an area where collaboration becomes very important, and where MC-IF can provide a forum for companies to work through those challenges together.
Q. What role does cross-industry collaboration play in making this work?
Ridge: It is essential. The video ecosystem spans broadcast, streaming, mobile, and consumer electronics, and all of those segments need to align for a codec to succeed at scale. MC-IF brings those different stakeholders together and creates a space where they can share insights and solve problems collaboratively.
We see our role as helping to lower the barriers to adoption by making it easier for companies to learn from each other and to build on shared experience.
Q. When organizations evaluate VVC from a business perspective, where do you see the most immediate return on investment?
Ridge: The most immediate value comes from network efficiency. In many environments, particularly mobile and high-volume streaming, bandwidth is a significant cost driver. VVC’s improved compression efficiency allows you to deliver the same or better quality at lower bitrates, which can translate directly into cost savings.
That is where the business case is most straightforward. If your costs are tied to how much data you are delivering, then improving efficiency has a direct financial impact.
Q. How should organizations think about the cost side of adoption?
Ridge: There are always trade-offs. Introducing a new codec requires investment. You may need to update encoding infrastructure, modify workflows, and ensure compatibility across devices. Those costs need to be considered alongside the potential savings.
What we are seeing is that organizations are becoming more sophisticated in how they evaluate those trade-offs. They are looking at where efficiency gains will have the greatest impact and targeting those areas first, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach.
Q. What about emerging use cases like immersive or interactive video? How do they factor into the financial equation?
Ridge: VVC is very well suited to those types of use cases, and it can enable new types of services. However, those markets are still developing. The immediate focus for most organizations is on efficiency and cost optimization.
Over time, as immersive and interactive applications gain traction, VVC could play a larger role in enabling those experiences. But for now, the primary driver is still economic efficiency.
Q. How should organizations think about VVC in relation to existing codecs like AV1?
Ridge: The reality is that multiple codecs will coexist. AV1 has an established presence, particularly in certain segments and devices, and it is not going away. At the same time, VVC offers higher efficiency and supports a broader range of applications.
The right approach is to look at the strengths of each and apply them where they make the most sense. In many cases, that will mean using a combination of codecs to achieve the best overall outcome.
Q. We are also seeing innovation from smaller companies, particularly around AI. How is that influencing the evolution of video coding?
Ridge: There is a lot of interesting work happening in that area. Smaller companies are often at the forefront of combining artificial intelligence with traditional coding techniques to improve performance. That can include better compression, more efficient encoding, or new capabilities that enhance the overall experience.
We see that as an important part of the ecosystem, and it is one of the reasons we are working to bring more of those companies into MC-IF.
Q. Looking ahead, how should organizations think about what comes after VVC?
Ridge: Work is already underway on a successor to VVC, often referred to as H.267, but it is still several years away from being finalized. For organizations making decisions in the near term, VVC represents the most advanced and practical option available.
At the same time, it is important to think about the longer-term roadmap. Technology will continue to evolve, and organizations need to be prepared to adapt as new standards emerge.
Conclusion
The evolution of VVC adoption reflects a broader pattern in technology markets, where progress depends not only on technical capability but also on coordination across complex ecosystems.
In 2026, the conversation is no longer about whether VVC will be used. It is about how quickly and effectively it can be deployed in real-world environments. Organizations are approaching these decisions with a more pragmatic mindset, balancing efficiency, cost, and compatibility as they build multi-codec strategies.
For MC-IF, this moment represents a focus on execution, with an emphasis on helping members translate standards into operational outcomes. As video continues to dominate digital consumption, the ability to deploy more efficient compression technologies at scale will remain a key differentiator.
The pace of progress will ultimately depend on how effectively the ecosystem aligns around implementation. That work is now well underway.