Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 14/12/2013 3:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> While I'm all for vp8, this argument is a far shot. I actually think 
> that the longer we wait, the easier it will be to pick vp8.
>
> Did you notice that the only objection to choosing vp8 that returns in 
> the survey is the Nokia ipr statement? There is no mention any more of 
> lack of hw support? When Google makes the binary offer that Cisco made 
> for h264, that goes away. I wonder what objections will remain??
>
> Time is actually on the side of royalty free in this case faict.
>

I think there is a bit of a fallacy at play here. H.264's installed base 
in the context of WebRTC is exactly zero. Why? Because there is no 
meaningful encoder support on any platform.

H.264 needs to buy time in order to build that hardware encoder support. 
VP8's software codec adoption is a foot in the door, which is precisely 
why H.264 is trying to block it at the pass. If VP8 were to demonstrate 
strong demand by way of WebRTC, it would be far easier to get 
manufacturers to deploy VP8 in hardware.

IPR-issues aside, does anyone honestly think that we'd be better off 
with a video codec monopoly? I'd much rather see VP8 and H.264 compete 
on equal footing. I believe that one of Mozilla's primary goals for 
entering the mobile market was to create competition in that space, 
which is why I hope that they will push for competition in this space as 
well.

Gili