Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Like Firefox and Opera...and the browser I might create in the future? :)
> Firefox only has decoding support on some platforms, because it uses the
> operating system's H.264 decoder if it has one so far as I know.
>

I anticipate that Firefox will use HW codecs on phones. We haven't
determined what we will do on operating systems with good H.264
codecs built in to the platform.

-Ekr

On 2 November 2013 13:31, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure I understand this completely. Isn't support for "the Rube
>> Goldberg Machine" needed only on platforms that do not natively support
>> H.264?
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I also want to reiterate that having a MTI codec means Mandatory To
>> Implement.
>>
>> That means, that should we decide to go down the H.264 path, Firefox and
>> others will be forced to support this Rube Goldberg machine for obtaining
>> H.264 for an indeterminate amount of time, long after WebRTC has moved on
>> to prefer other codecs.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 10/31/13 13:47, 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Harald that VP8 is a better codec than H.264 baseline in a
>>> number of important ways.
>>>
>>> But I also want to reiterate that having an MTI codec has never been
>>> about choosing the best codec or even a good codec. It's about choosing an
>>> emergency backup codec-of-last-resort. It's about having one single
>>> mandated codec that everyone has in their back pocket in case nothing else
>>> works.
>>>
>>> The core of RTCWEB is about session *negotiation*. Endpoints will
>>> negotiate the best codec they have in common. Once the next generation of
>>> codecs come out, this "best codec in common" will only be the MTI if they
>>> were about to fail anyway.
>>>
>>> So it doesn't have to be good.
>>>
>>> It just has to be better than failure.
>>>
>>> /a
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

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