Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens) <
jlaurens@cisco.com> wrote:

> First, my area of focus is system deployment for existing organizations,
> and my employer is clearly leaning H.264, however as an individual:
>
> I am of the opinion that from a "browser user perspective" this is pretty
> easy because two of the issues I see seem not to have a significant winner
> based on all this list activity:
> The average browser user does not care, except that bandwidth is
> materially affected - and there seems both are close in performance.
>  (Profiles and efficiency could be argued forever at this rate)
> IPR does seem to be in the air - and without being a lawyer, I see Nokia
> folks on this list declaring there is an issue here.
>  (But lawyers can argue forever)
>

No, this is a fundamental issue. If H.264 is the MTI, to quote Harald, "we
give up and live with royalties forever". This will have a significant
impact on WebRTC innovation and adoption.

The fact that there are some who disagree with the IPR status of VP8 does
not invalidate this point.

>
> There seems to be a split.... however I believe the third factor here,
> while less technical in nature, will affect deployment and adoption.
>
> I believe the ability to leverage existing applications/infrastructure
> with a relatively small amount of work is a third leg in this stool and
> tips the balance materially for those looking to light up applications.
>
> Simply put, a user would ask why a new, less-interoperable standard is
> being introduced in absence of  functionality or bandwidth savings.
>
> This has material cost savings and media flow implications for a large set
> of the people who are going to use this technology. Clearly this was an
> important factor based on the SDP slant of the content of the spec.
>  In my opinion we are not paying enough attention to an important line in
> the burman h.264 proposal: "In addition, using H.264 enables
> interoperability with many other services without video transcoding."
>

Nobody is saying implementors can't support H.264. If interoperability with
such services is a high priority, implementors will ship H.264 regardless
of what we decide here.

>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be nice if video just works for the end user instead of them
> having to install a different browser or buying a different device with a
> different browser.
>
> I personally think there needs to be a MTI video codec even if it is an
> old codec such as H.261. Although the codec should not require a lot of
> bandwidth to look decent which excludes something such as MJPEG.
>
>
> On 25 October 2013 10:50, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <
> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree
>>
>> We can either explicitly make a "no MTI" decision, or just let it become
>> the default by the absence of agreement.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> > [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
>> > Sent: 25 October 2013 09:04
>> > To: harald@alvestrand.no; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Formalistically, the people who argue for abandoning an
>> > MTI, like the
>> > > people who argue for adapting an antiquated codec, have not
>> > put in a
>> > > draft by the chairs' deadline of October 6, so have not
>> > made a proposal.
>> > >
>> > > But I'm not the one who argued for this to be put on the
>> > agenda for 2 hours.
>> > > The people who pushed for this to be on the agenda for 2
>> > hours need to
>> > > come forward and say why they believe this is a good use of
>> > our time.
>> > > I haven't yet heard a VP8 proponent saying so.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I thought it has been mainly the VP8 proponents who have
>> > insisted to continue this discussion and have it on the agenda.
>> >
>> > I am a H.264 proponent but it's clear to me there is no
>> > consensus, no substantially new information since March, and
>> > for that reason the IETF should not pick either H.264 or VP8
>> > as *mandatory*. And consequently 2 hours is too much time for this.
>> >
>> > It is useful to discuss pros and cons of H.264 and VP8 and
>> > compare them, since most likely every WebRTC endpoint will
>> > implement at least one of them, but I think we need to stop
>> > pushing for the decision of mandating one of them.
>> >
>> > Of course, if we come back to this issue every November, we
>> > can eventually choose H.264 as mandatory, after all of its
>> > IPR has expired :-)
>> >
>> > Markus
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rtcweb mailing list
>> > rtcweb@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>