Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

[tim panton <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Nov 2014, at 17:46, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 05/11/14 18:16, Victor Pascual Avila wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:01 PM, tim panton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> All implementations of the rtcweb specification must implement at least one of  VP8 or H.264,
>>> implementations that also implement the w3c’s webRTC javascript  API must implement  both VP8 and H264
>> I'd be OK with that
> I don't see any reason to split on JavaScript API implementations and
> the rest.
> 
> Moreover, looking back, the web browsers (and the web ecosystem itself)
> got to this level mainly due to open source implementations, via
> khtml/webkit and gecko/firefox (then servers and other tools), which at
> some point were small and not benefiting of any substantial resources.
> If any of "must implement" requirements adds limits (financial or not)
> to the usage in any kind of major open source licensing models, it is
> going to block a lot of innovation and disruption in the field.
> 
> Better the freedom to negotiate anything and fail to find some common
> grounds in a session than building a walled garden for 'the chosen ones'
> -- hopefully the aim is not to build a new pstn-like ecosystem.

I accept that argument, to an extent. However I think the costs of producing an all new browser
are now so high that the H264 license won’t be the blocker. I have no evidence for this opinion.
The combination of the Cisco h264 plugin ugliness and the exposure of h264 hardware on iOS also
mitigate the problem. It is however still a problem, but on balance having no webRTC MTI for video is 
worse IMHO.


> 
> Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>