Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [was RE: Use Case draft]

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 05/02/2012 08:19 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> My objection is that the proposed system will require middleware to
> interoperate with the
> vast number of videoconferencing sessions out there, most of which use
> RTP. From the
> standpoint of a video service provider, buying hardware to support
> video to laptops is likely to
> lead to requests that participants download some other software which
> interoperates natively.
>
> This is an existing business with a fairly large scale and installed
> base. Not operating the way that they do is not likely to go over
> well.
>
Marshall,

I'd like to draw your attention to two numbers:

- Number of installed room videoconferencing units: On the order of 1 
million.

http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/company/video_conferencing_by_the_numbers.pdf

- Number of installed Chrome browsers: On the order of 200 million.

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/google-chrome-browser-hits-200-million-users-1033951

(pulling out Chrome just because I know we've promised to ship this 
stuff. And we auto-update, which means most of the users WILL be running 
a WebRTC-compatible browser the week after we release it.)

I argue strongly for doing things in ways that we know work, which means 
not inventing stuff until we really have to. And I've even argued 
strongly for doing things in ways that *permit* interoperation with 
those older devices - but not in the cases where doing so risks harming 
the security, stability and operational complexity of the installed base 
that is to come.

                     Harald