Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 25 October 2013 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
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 B720C11E819C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 2pOtwV8KydU1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F08111E81CD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id jy13so3937534veb.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=p2yVI5Ls5AqSYHTyMqBtIgD5jj/6ruOOH6qojj9NDwI=; b=VkJX94ZySmefDRy0gbt/lxaWVm94spqK2eiP3i9JjHwKxhG7PLdfe+ucjXbz+6KYeH YTTbR4n8ZE0pSbzpBj/a+jPq3Mzu3MpVvAxrhSSpL3rWhm14Kr6WQJSvEN3H7kl4KV43 6VJY7RS0O80PVLdb6ASU1fxpXY474HnnStMI+gYBfzaoMnMHniz3tponl5h01VUvoFzi K02oDZHCk7ivOgE/PbTplLx+Ph0HvEnC/xIS3+iaAZTT5TqPTkEZb160HYXUuE+pnZLz gD9M39fUQYoZgOXYhUEHf4/3zfKQL8uUi6pmBcsRoduLoBM2SMJuvnaXh41FoC0tyKsp yy5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=p2yVI5Ls5AqSYHTyMqBtIgD5jj/6ruOOH6qojj9NDwI=; b=gOyHcV3BekyH+YyDrWp70cgXN/vR/Fv7siASAudQEn1KwpKdMT8lmiJkQS3K3rkZJr qMUvmuynvtawtsQ3hAA2FIfkQpRXTIFoYas23E41HtEFMvqcyotpbWo0KwNH1WU4lDni j8P6i7WfXAW21CTc/hLAhvC+MeTMqw8UNgDJoZtonWg8SxyCvddnY024q8Nr64HyoNuW z4hWUWPit/TGgLfYDEJvkUCeviMaj9JRY+jJDhmi+2xXzMwDSnRq4S0SngzQCCvrORPp Jbo8bZgRVbynTvtZsAZ7rLiDhJTElvCyjJBLNmGY32qDv3IQnEjfi1OrXsX8DhZruedB 6+Qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+FcQmZatNg2sS6sLWU+jtEmaApTXO3UGDviITexdHAKQgQtI6Ez4Pe3BKE0q+rHQU0HZstld6Mki+o2x6TIMadwT0Z4AZFDCMR/qr3scWbSvH+1yQjgUMtXVP9A2QHCH4EdzM9kY33Y8RbvNRfkcqDw1uIWvR9WzTenGRmPeDhG0dTvUzol0v3eUn2jw4Wc905NCD
X-Received: by 10.58.39.97 with SMTP id o1mr6149323vek.15.1382743942798; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <526AE703.8000409@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5269764C.4030801@librevideo.org> <52698758.5040404@bbs.darktech.org> <CAD6AjGSb5syh0HO+89fH8cGZ0zqM6gYLPj3aeTRQLN0u8W4cSg@mail.gmail.com> <5269F098.2020904@alvestrand.no> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0F272E@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0BF358@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAGgHUiRtXUAJTotAFX7YwQ6cS_OD-MpAb+898c6OYxm7D5xXKw@mail.gmail.com> <FCBEDCB500188C488DA30C874B94F80E1C01158C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1iV4_SvToRYYtDZszxkSDF0qmrS4YN8w7OFQ3p29CaDw@mail.gmail.com> <526AE703.8000409@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2SXBgvzXK0_3KCAtre_6rzqk3vhuxfXoATi1+FijCiCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e011834d886b8c904e9992949"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:32:26 -0000

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 25/10/2013 3:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>     What prevents us from retiring H264, VP8 or any other codec in the
> future? Surely we are allowed to retire codecs after 5-10 years? If not,
> listing any codec as MTI (including VP8) places us at a some level of risk.
>
>
>   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.
>
>
>     The same is true for VP8, so why mandate it as required?
>

Because we want to guarantee video interoperability without forcing
everyone to pay licensing feeds.


> If VP8 is as good as everyone alleges (and I think it is) then surely
> vendors should be moving in this direction. But they are not. Forcing VP8
> as MTI comes across as a political ploy to force their hand.
>

Regarding VP8, pretty much every SoC vendor is now shipping HW VP8
acceleration, so I think there is clear movement in this direction.

>
>     From an end-user point of view, the only thing I really care about is
> getting WebRTC support from Microsoft and Apple. Because I view everything
> through that prism, my primary concern is how this decision affects them
> jumping on board.
>

I can't speak for Microsoft and Apple, but I don't think they are sitting
around waiting for us to make up our mind on this.

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