Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Mon, 04 November 2013 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D643821E81A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:38:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19FnRfKctIhO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CB7321E8173 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2736 invoked by uid 0); 4 Nov 2013 16:37:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by qproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2013 16:37:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=AM7hhYl8jv/hBpXp7YiPmKwZP75qvjNlxWDmhzgRJ+s=; b=VHwnE+PxIK7+Ca97NbJtNxvV7dy9oJ06b/uhqjcDip4Pz2IeuPwFjEzK9rXeRsQgJMAEjTvu4IWA4sZmgadpk4iaXafHgf782NA/mz3kRqztVH7dgaZ6+qn2YCaxeYhO;
Received: from [173.79.179.104] (port=53745 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1VdNA2-0005jH-O6; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:37:55 -0700
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>
To: "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>, "'Ron'" <ron@debian.org>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <20131102124801.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CA+23+fE1S_K93xk+3WNbq1RAFt8QD++pF74OJowu_+qz71H91g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fE1S_K93xk+3WNbq1RAFt8QD++pF74OJowu_+qz71H91g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:37:54 -0500
Message-ID: <012501ced97c$37021ae0$a50650a0$@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0126_01CED952.4E2D9980"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQH6pu1RcnTqG2CSG3ZFwm2jX+BNyQIbS425AbBlFiCZn0zk0A==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 173.79.179.104 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:38:32 -0000

+1

 

Well stated. 

 

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Ron
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we
still prefer VP8

 

I do not believe that "genuinely free" is the only, nor even the primary,
consideration here.

 

I believe we should in general be thinking about what it takes to make
webRTC successful. And more than anything else, that means making it a
platform that application developers can utilize. If we do our jobs well,
we'll have many thousands (hundreds of thousands even) of applications on
the web that are enabled with real-time comms and frankly a great many of
them will know nothing about codecs or the nuances of MPEG-LA licensing.
What are the considerations for making webRTC attractive to them?

 

I assert that the primary thing they'll want is to interconnect their
application with some kind of video network or user base that can add value
to their application. Let me give an example. Lets say there is a bank, and
this bank wants to add the ability for a user to look at their investment
portfolio online, click a button, and have a voice/video call with their
investment advisor. To build such an app into their existing banking web
app, the bank will need webRTC to connect to the voice and video contact
center and clients their investment advisors have. Today, all of that is
based on H.264. 

 

So - I would assert that frankly our primary consideration for webRTC is
interoperability. And interoperability as a requirement clearly points to
H.264. 

 

There are other considerations too. Some of the ones I'd list are:

 

* Interoperates with install base

* Widespread deployment

* Appeals to the existing set of video application developers - in other
words, the biggest consumers of webRTC should be the folks who are already
providing video communications applications on the Internet (which by
definition none of them do so natively from the browser). Don't we want them
to come to the web with webRTC?

* Available widely in hardware - especially mobile phones

* Broad availability of expertise

* Broad availability of toolsets

* Multiple codebases and implementations to choose from

 

And none of that has anything to do with IPR or royalties. 

 

-Jonathan R.

 

 

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Ron <ron@debian.org <mailto:ron@debian.org>
> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:47:31PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open source H.264
codec
> available and usable by the community. We look forward to seeing the
result
> of this effort.
>
> Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully open,
> high-quality video codec that you can download, compile for your platform,
> include in your binary, distribute and put into production today - is the
> best choice of a Mandatory to Implement video codec for the WebRTC effort.

This is my belief also.

While the Cisco announcement is certainly an interesting approach to trying
to extricate their existing technology investment from the deep quagmire of
encumbrances that currently bind it, the result still falls well short of
not only the ideal, but also the already existing alternative choices that
we have available to us.

Given the choice between a genuinely Free option, that anyone is free to
improve and distribute however they wish - and a no-cost binary-only option
that is available from only a single supplier, while Happy Hour lasts - the
decision still seems to be something of a no-brainer.  Even before you also
consider that the Free Option is not constrained to only its lowest possible
performance mode in the implementation that is available to people today.

VP8 still seems like the only obvious and enduring choice for an MTI codec
for WebRTC at present.

  Ron



_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb





 

-- 

Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
jdrosen@jdrosen.net <mailto:jdrosen@jdrosen.net> 
http://www.jdrosen.net