Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (Was: Comment on Straw Poll replies)

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Many people who answered the straw poll argued that we must use H.264 
for the sake of interoperability with legacy devices that only support 
H.264. I am trying to explore this argument.

Android is not an H.264-only device, therefore it is not relevant to 
this discussion.

Gili

On 14/01/2014 2:50 PM, Cavigioli, Chris wrote:
>
> Why are we debating this?  There are billions of Android devices 
> shipped in recent years and billions of PCs shipped in recent years.  
> They can be programmed with apps, browsers and sw programs to support 
> WebRTC.
>
> *From:*rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *cowwoc
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:35 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (Was: 
> Comment on Straw Poll replies)
>
> Hi,
>
> Can we please make a concrete list of how many legacy devices with 
> video encoding/decoding capability have shipped? How many of them 
> could realistically interoperate with WebRTC? How many of them have a 
> large enough market-share and video resolution to make them noteworthy?
>
> Please, if your product(s) fall into this category please mention them 
> now.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 14/01/2014 9:59 AM, Cb B wrote:
>
>
>     On Jan 14, 2014 6:53 AM, "Cb B" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Jan 13, 2014 11:51 PM, "Christer Holmberg"
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Hi,
>     > >
>     > > >It doesn't matter that your legacy device can play YouTube
>     (i.e. decode
>     > > >H.264 in a web browser). My point is that unless a legacy
>     device can do everything I mentioned in the top bullet points then
>     it's not relevant to the MTI discussion.
>     > >
>     > > I don't agree.
>     > >
>     > > >> Regarding the third bullet, it is true that gateway
>     functionality will often be needed to handle WebRTC specific
>     features (continous consent etc). But, such gateway wouldn't have
>     to do video transcoding.
>     > > >
>     > > > I don't understand. I don't think that VP8 (or any other
>     codec) as MTI implies that you would have to transcode in the gateway.
>     > > >
>     > > > If we're going to talk about gateways, it's important for
>     you to explain what kind of devices are on either end. Please clarify.
>     > >
>     > > I think Keith gave IMS based networks/devices as an example,
>     so I'll echo him.
>     > >
>     > > But, of course the networks/devices on the other side could
>     also be non-IMS SIP networks.
>     > >
>     > > Regards,
>     > >
>     > > Christer
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     > You gave IMS as an example, but afaik IMS video calling is not
>     widely deployed. Afaik, it is not deployed at scale in production
>     at all.
>     >
>     > In fact, there may be a case that WebRTC voice and video is more
>     widely deployed than any pure IMS 3gpp deployment.
>     >
>     > I lately noticed that Facebook now has voice and video calls
>     without a plugin (i think..)
>     >
>     > So perhaps IMS video is not a good example of an install base
>     since it does not exist.
>     >
>     > CB
>     >
>
>     I have not tested facebook video calling, so lets not discuss it.
>
>     I have also never tested IMS video calling. So lets not discuss
>     that either unless you have a noteworthy example that is in
>     production at scale and is worth discussing as an install base.
>
>     CB
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > > ________________________________________
>     > > > From: rtcweb [[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] on behalf of cowwoc
>     > > > [[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     > > > Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 7:48 PM
>     > > > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > > > Subject: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (Was:
>     Comment on
>     > > > Straw Poll replies)
>     > > >
>     > > > Keith,
>     > > >
>     > > > Even if we mandate H.264 and SDP as MTI, how in the world do
>     you expect RTCWEB to be interoperable with existing video
>     equipment? I just don't get this argument.
>     > > >
>     > > > As far as I can tell, the market share of devices that:
>     > > >
>     > > >    *   Encode/decode H.264 in hardware *and* expose public
>     APIs for doing so,
>     > > >    *   Understand SDP,
>     > > >    *   Are WebRTC compliant
>     > > >
>     > > > is exactly zero. There is no way that legacy devices will
>     magically begin supporting WebRTC. This will require *new*
>     products to get released.
>     > > >
>     > > > Gili
>     > > >
>     > > > On 13/01/2014 9:47 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>     > > > Legacy interoperability is important to some of us.
>     > > >
>     > > > It is not about preserving our existing equipment.
>     > > >
>     > > > It is about the fact the communication involves two or more
>     parties, and we want to enable video communication between RTCWEB
>     user and the rest of the entities in the world that are capable of
>     video, without having to resort to transcoding video on all calls.
>     Yes transcoding is possible, but it has a cost that someone will
>     have to pay for, and it introduces delay, which can be catered
>     for, but removes the possibility of someone else in the call path
>     using that delay portion.
>     > > >
>     > > > Currently there are a considerable number more of those
>     users using legacy systems than there are using RTCWEB.
>     > > >
>     > > > Keith
>     > > >
>     > > > ________________________________
>     > > > From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of cowwoc
>     > > > Sent: 10 January 2014 16:39
>     > > > To: [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > > > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
>     > > >
>     > > > On 10/01/2014 9:54 AM, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > Can I ask why you even bother with WebRTC, if you want to
>     restrict WebRTC to interoperability with old systems only and
>     therefore to old features only?
>     > > > I'd like to suggest that such replies should be disregarded
>     because they look backwards and not forwards.
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > I don't think that disregarding replies is a constructive
>     way forward.
>     > > >
>     > > > However if you want to go that way, and if you want to get
>     rid of old technologies, let's start by disregarding replies from
>     those who could live with a WebRTC technology that would specify
>     H.261 as only  MTI codec.
>     > > > Given your concerns about "old" systems and "od" features,
>     I'm a little bit surprised that your are part of them.
>     > > >
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10798.html
>     > > > (note that there is G.711 for audio but NOT as ONLY MTI codec)
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > This is a fallacy. No one is arguing that you should be
>     stuck with using *just* H.261. What we are saying is that: if
>     H.264 or VP8 are available on both end-points, great. If not, you
>     can either:
>     > > >
>     > > >    *   Use H.261, or
>     > > >    *   Transcode, or
>     > > >    *   Drop Video
>     > > >
>     > > > By eliminating H.261 as MTI, you lose the first option and
>     are forced to either transcode or drop video. The cost to
>     supporting H.261 is as simple as compiling
>     https://github.com/Vproject/p64 and popping it on your device. You
>     don't need hardware support because it's so computationally cheap.
>     > > >
>     > > > And finally, we're not objecting to the use of H.264, per
>     se, but rather to the fact that the majority of people who vote
>     for it and against everything else use "legacy interoperability"
>     as argument.
>     > > >
>     > > > WebRTC is a *new* technology. If all we wanted to do was to
>     support *existing* devices then we would use *existing*
>     technologies. For that reason, I don't think maintaining backwards
>     compatibility is important when breaking it has a noticeable
>     benefit (and in this case, I believe it does).
>     > > >
>     > > > Alternatively, please convince MPEG-LA to make H.264
>     available royalty-free.
>     > > >
>     > > > Gili
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > rtcweb mailing list
>     > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>