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

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 11/2/2013 7:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Those enterprise scenarios often either involve a defined software 
> image that could include the Cisco plugin (does it always have to be 
> downloaded?) OR involve a relatively recent OS, with native H.264 
> support. So I am not sure this need come up that often.

IANAPL (I Am Not A Patent Lawyer) - but if you make an image that 
includes Cisco's plugin for imaging machines, that would be a violation 
of the rules - you would be the one distributing it to end-use systems.  
While you're unlikely to get pinged on it, the company lawyers may not 
see it that way, and it might show up flagged in an audit, and IT guys 
don't like that.

There are also some systems that don't generally allow plugins of any 
sort (such as Metro IIRC); though those might have native H.264 
encode/decode support.  Note that platform encode/decode support for 
WebRTC is more problematic than software support, since the H.264 
encoders (hell, even decoders) may be of questionable stability. (You'll 
note the blacklists/whitelists Mozilla uses for platform decoder support 
on Android, for example, because some of them have problems.)  How 
serious that problem is (and how serious it is for encoders) is not 
clear.   There's also the issue of what knobs are available to tune the 
encoder, especially for resiliency options.

>
> On Nov 2, 2013, at 3:35 AM, "Emil Ivov" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Also, while Cisco's grant is quite interesting for certain scenarios 
>> it could be very problematic for others. For example: enterprises 
>> where installations are handled in a controlled and automated way 
>> (e.g. scripted image deployment) and where subsequent Internet access 
>> could be limited for various reasons.
>>
>> Emil
>>
>> --
>>


-- 
Randell Jesup
[e-mail]