IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Sat, 26 October 2013 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 C746811E81DF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 slIDde7dBrKI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0344721F9E89 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ar20so8932462iec.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=ektXDKdjPGxvnug1Y1Ng/jJG/06RH1ZBsTFcQ0Eu5PI=; b=Qsv7cZl293OcinxysNr3dgsYx0xo0+VS0HsDn7YbhNL1cCARjGHFZtl314O89puGCO W4IPGDsCRif9EvdfKjtUo7a/i37Kyo85pPWm8HcNGofghc/ejN53aYON6z1YPs8u1A2p 4zp8r+bgDbVYmawHju2QhJGvcAyxl4jBzCkntZBm/N+qDt0NqxsTIp9756uKI1Xa768o Bq4I4qEn1CZBJOE+MJWDP97OJxFIYT43U3r2zLCsjbiMzRpLvQLoRBD3sUpTCg6d08Fv hJ9dBj0PewjVzuLNHGm04WLIeHPHI26i05kmPchzOqeP8ijYtyjvPny3hX9HyUx7YyMd U+sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlZm2tmLeHZAN+HVea4mYpCqH7zIjXd8IxGdwURDrU0Bt6/S5dRYWFu2NxfEDriM9Vi3vdT
X-Received: by 10.50.11.67 with SMTP id o3mr2975968igb.55.1382813336027; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm9811758igh.0.2013.10.26.11.48.54 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <526C0E94.9020009@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:48:52 -0400
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.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> <CAD6AjGQTSeVYjP0V--sbbMUYvTJuzqqh3r+K-pwve7KkS4dSgg@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123CDD2CE@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <AB2CDC9E-ACC4-423D-B0C0-B51F2D839830@phonefromhere.com> <CAGgHUiSDGp82fD-CquRQWN51vn2ujK8_ZzNcbg8KaLaxCeV0Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiSDGp82fD-CquRQWN51vn2ujK8_ZzNcbg8KaLaxCeV0Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060702010906040004090906"
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: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:49:02 -0000

     I think you are a lot more likely to see H264/VP8 proponents 
offering free plugins then you are getting everyone to accept the same 
codec as MTI.

     Then again, Google refused to carry H264 in Chrome (I doubt 
licensing fees had anything to do with it) so maybe I'm wrong.

Gili

On 26/10/2013 11:40 AM, Leon Geyser wrote:
> I don't think it is such a great idea, because it now places the 
> plug-in development away from the browser developers. The reason why I 
> say that is bad: Who says the plug-in maintainers will be willing to 
> release a plugin for each new browser that comes out on each platform? 
> And how do we install those plug-ins on mobile phones where we don't 
> have access to the application's isolated storage?
> It probably could work somehow, but a lot of thinking would be 
> required. It will be easier just to mandate a MTI codec.
>
>
> On 26 October 2013 17:11, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com 
> <mailto:tim@phonefromhere.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 26 Oct 2013, at 16:04, Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se
>     <mailto:karl.stahl@intertex.se>> wrote:
>
>     > Has a Video Codec Plug-in Slot been considered or discussed?
>     > Wouldn't specifying such codec slots and making them mandatory
>     for WebRTC
>     > make (almost) everyone happy?
>
>     A _very_ long time ago (in terms of the rtcweb efforts) I floated
>     the idea of having codecs as javascript objects,
>     which would then be manageable and replaceable in javascript, and
>     could be implemented with technologies like NaCL. However at that
>     time it was viewed as overly complex and taken no further.
>
>     Tim.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email