H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has increased substantially.
However, major manufacturers including Avigilon, Axis, and Bosch still only support H.265 on a minority of their cameras. Plus, smart codecs have emerged as an important alternative means to reduce bandwidth usage (see Smart Codec Usage Statistics).
So how widely is H.265 being used?
180 integrators responded answering:
In the past year, what percentage of cameras did you deploy that used H.265 for streaming/recording video? Why?
Based on this survey, it seems there is still a lot of misunderstanding out there. H.265 does not compress more than H.264, it is a more efficient way of compression. Video degradation is less in H.265 than 264 when the camera is at the same bitrate and compression value. Smart Codecs greatly degrade video quality. Optimally, it's only in places that are not important, but it doesn't always work out like that. Smart Codec in no way equal to or a replacement for the benefits of H.265. In my experience, the misunderstanding is garnered from camera vendors who did not adopt (or still have a long way to go) H.265 and are in defense mode to save sales until they catch up. Reminds me of the time when analog manufacturers were fighting the IP revolution claiming that analog is superior because of stability, cost, simplicity and free of latency. Look what happened to those manufacturers.
Smart Codec in no way equal to or a replacement for the benefits of H.265
It's actually better because it reduces the bit rate substantially but is lower overhead for decoding. H.265 by itself will lose in bandwidth efficiency to smart H.265. Even H.265 needs smart codecs to compete.
Optimally, it's only in places that are not important, but it doesn't always work out like that
The main optimization in smart codecs is the dynamic I frame interval which works very well since it is not reducing quality at all, it is simply analyzing for a lack of motion and, when that occurs, it lengthens the I frame interval, much more significantly reducing bandwidth consumption that H.265 alone.
If decoding processing isn't a primary concern (completely understood that it often is, for both server-side decoding for VMD/analytics and client viewing), though, H.265 would be the better choice, in almost every instance.
I assume you are making claims about adoption from end-user perspective.
From end user perspective IP cameras were more user friendly. It's not about technology it's about being easier for end user. Technology just "enabler". You were able to use IP Camera in any browser using MJPEG (or JPEG on timer). While analog cameras required TV or DVR.
As it stands now h.265 is not user friendly enough. Either special player/add-on needed or transcoding of h.265 in browser into h2.64 and this process which has its own limitations.
H.264 & H.265, why? Too many patent licenses and greedy people, IMHO that is why H.265 is low pop.
VP9 has a free competitor that rips H.264's butt and rivals H.265 without all the content lawsuits. The new young-ling on the block is AV1 (not A V I). If it completes nerd approvals, it may soon be on your camera or umm...Cloud-Onvif.
It's not that H.265 does not work but in comparison to AV1 it is the convoluted vs. the complex. I really don't mind either but I always have to roll with the RED TEAM, remember guys..RED TEAM ALWAYS WINS.