Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 14 December 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362BA1AD83F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:30:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V5ZzRAkc0fj1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DF31AD73E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w62so3167225wes.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:30:32 -0800 (PST)
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=IixNqOduz+dP5NtRL/GRxfYcU1r7RtcS+WN8WKyapSw=; b=B4VRDebit2hlnGIcY9AA53A1QiR8cUYan6Zf+v70OE5lIWUGmidE5mTyDThqWqR5lY /m3Nrqd7gq/LJf8VhWJn3kfHk7eriaWapD0hlKpitRwxqvPnEGoqL7yR3n1pPTQKPPrw +kiiWiLSobmPT7GPZ+wGViFcWNGKbM3kp83rp7uy80lOTZ0XNZ+61iIHkfSNIk7h1gQF hBKtqyS3/Xo0T9lp1XfMpyOB/BX3j7r8Yn8hpWT8j/9Jzex79VZq9cDbYsCrbzdsjzyT qIsSFjNOr9a1y9PU16xE1chlnwPtjbETtxVtxBe7U4IRO5d/TDfP9qfNQ/5C+t3MV0us GEUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQleR4An2hexc6dgJ0wQzDAm669Od7NXWynqQjRG9RosLeV+zJJHaIur5ginynL5SrFDVpsq
X-Received: by 10.194.77.202 with SMTP id u10mr7406428wjw.39.1387056632114; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:30:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.54.194 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:29:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <52ACCAAA.8040303@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <20131212214310.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFA3EA.AC30E%stewe@stewe.org> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F8739@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213024334.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F88D6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213033344.GW3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFF758.205FF%mzanaty@cisco.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A16219B@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <20131214102855.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <20131214122049.604352b3@rainpc> <20131214132520.GZ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AC7B89.3030103@bbs.darktech.org> <CAHp8n2==FmVsdr3+HLT226pv3wm9i8ma_fE0EyDM0dY0PfbZjA@mail.gmail.com> <52ACCAAA.8040303@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:29:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMj8igNggmXKqZtZX24a41C9yaG5hXBkTQ0tF7HZOagUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:30:49 -0000

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:16 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> On 14/12/2013 3:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> While I'm all for vp8, this argument is a far shot. I actually think that
>> the longer we wait, the easier it will be to pick vp8.
>>
>> Did you notice that the only objection to choosing vp8 that returns in the
>> survey is the Nokia ipr statement? There is no mention any more of lack of
>> hw support? When Google makes the binary offer that Cisco made for h264,
>> that goes away. I wonder what objections will remain??
>>
>> Time is actually on the side of royalty free in this case faict.
>>
>
> I think there is a bit of a fallacy at play here. H.264's installed base in
> the context of WebRTC is exactly zero. Why? Because there is no meaningful
> encoder support on any platform.

"Installed base" here also means the very large number of
existing devices which speak SIP and which have H.264-only.

With that said, there are also a large number of devices with
built-in H.264 encoders.


> IPR-issues aside, does anyone honestly think that we'd be better off with a
> video codec monopoly? I'd much rather see VP8 and H.264 compete on equal
> footing. I believe that one of Mozilla's primary goals for entering the
> mobile market was to create competition in that space, which is why I hope
> that they will push for competition in this space as well.

I'm not sure what you think "Mozilla" should do other than what it's doing,
which is to support both codecs.

-Ekr