IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] On demand & Internet TV via rtcweb? (was: Current H.264...)

tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Fri, 08 November 2013 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 1DCD721E8152 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:24:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 GOV-H+1KJ0SU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:24:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE9A11E80FB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31759 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2013 19:24:38 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 11648
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2013 19:24:38 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB1718A06BF; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:24:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.157.136] (unknown [192.67.4.37]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B927518A03D4; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:24:37 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1FBF446D-2A8A-4DBD-95C9-1548BC9E24B7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAM5V9Z9B_aSqrCFZA7ZrpqpipbaMOrj_GV-x1c+GPZY=Pc+E2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:24:37 +0000
Message-Id: <FF6248A2-D978-43C9-A280-99D4E5235CD8@westhawk.co.uk>
References: <CAM5V9Z9B_aSqrCFZA7ZrpqpipbaMOrj_GV-x1c+GPZY=Pc+E2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:14:08 -0800
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On demand & Internet TV via rtcweb? (was: Current H.264...)
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:24:47 -0000

On 8 Nov 2013, at 19:11, David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bet the vast majority of those 800 app developers' business model is to make money off *others* Internet content vs themselves being the provider of such.  If they are doing that legally, those licenses and royalties/revenue sharing arrangements are often really complex.

Well 50 of them are p2p messaging apps (so called OTT players) - where the content is _absolutely_ generated
by their users.

But I’m more thinking of the rent-my-appartment app where the owner can do a live video tour, or perhaps remote assist for
using the cooker. The rt-video is a nice-to-have but they certainly won’t spend time with the MPEG-LA’s lawyers 
to add it. 

Likewise the summon-a-prepaid taxi app - it might be nice to show the driver where you are waiting with live video,
but it is only spice to the main app purpose. Again these guys won’t do video if it means they have to distract them selves with lawyers when they hit the 100k user mark.

Or one of the _infinite_ number of wedding planner apps - perhaps they’d add a live consult feature, but not if
it cost legal time and money to do. 

> 
> Regardless, how many providers of on-demand titles and broadcast TV over the Internet would use rtcweb to deliver such no matter which codec was MTI? 

I have no idea, those aren’t the markets I know about. They are businesses where the _key_ point is video delivery,
I think there are a lot of interesting apps where it is the icing on the wedding cake (so to speak), we risk losing those folks from webRTC.

> 
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Interesting datapoint on the >100K subscribers front.  From Flurry - (via @BenedictEvans) There are at
> least 800 app developers with > 1M subscribers. So there seem to me to be quite a few 'Little guys' who
> may avoid webRTC if it requires an H264 license . 
> 
> http://blog.flurry.com//bid/102208/the-mobile-content-exlposion
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email