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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 23 October 2013 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 1848411E81F5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4945Knh8CoRU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1965F11E8204 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEF139E173 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:51:03 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IygTcqDazwf7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.186] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5C3D39E116 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:51:02 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:51:15 -0000

Just a reminder:
The back-and-forth of numbers doesn't change the core question of this
debate.
Both codecs are capable of high quality video encoding, and performance
numbers are comparable.

The real core question is the IPR issue.

The tradition of the IETF says that allowing only business models that
can sustain royalty agreements and royalty payments is Bad for the Internet.

The dominant video codec, H.264, is a royalty-required codec.

Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.