Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
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 EC8A611E81FD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 9rHBobpdxQXi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A040D11E8205 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m17so161752oag.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2IqEoqwZkDeTThnAZ8Z40tuIzuSZKUFB0qa7UFGCsJw=; b=iDlRT2Em/YFD5/UWG2STepkP57VpSGv08QvIvSX3ns231y7EQQtAVO22RutyXQ3SPv l/oKdaa+rTsyZajKEiCywC39IsVchFqyP9PBYNBSwH+BjvEIRN2o8c0RHBUebrjD4p3k bVinaBCgQHoycGDEG5GCgPHZ5Subq8wmSeRqcSyiwuLFZeMdsze+uvwKw6k18/sclzGx jfK7Yz1MEfQ9qu8N1RCRkxKoaRFkfQg3D1xDGPn77nMHDrhI9PtssMXxXAit4tmsIjx8 BasleA8MA2f3qri7SAHlCbf+dWAcdGyMuFrDwt9AtbSiYizVWfDlkO9HtDybI7oJN7HQ 4mQQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.84.132 with SMTP id z4mr315843oby.49.1382652578080; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.94.40 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.94.40 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:09:37 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kTe-A3+Lf-mWhzNUHRMRf+jNN89Mwj=wMRhYYgfdmL-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111c09ac3b91604e983e34d"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:09:41 -0000
If VP8 is chosen as MTI, you'd need to come out as per IETF requirements. So would others. That's a good thing. If there indeed is anything there. Silvia. On 25 Oct 2013 03:11, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote: > On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There > are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is considerable > technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.**** > > ** ** > > My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11 > companies Google reached an agreement with.**** > > ** ** > > Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.**** > > ** ** > > Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know. > **** > > ** ** > > Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification, > similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not to. > You can draw your own conclusion there, too.**** > > ** ** > > Matthew Kaufman**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Bo Burman > *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:27 AM > *To:* Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue**** > > ** ** > > 1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in > terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin > sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is > also relevant.**** > > ** ** > > 2) The "back-and forth of numbers" seems to refer to Ericsson's work where > we tried to make a fair comparison to evaluate the extraordinary claims > from Google that VP8 is 70 or 40 percent better than x264. We found serious > issues with the way Google performed the test, maybe the most striking were > the use of padding (+8% for x264) and excessive number of threads (+10% to > +40% for x264) to add overhead to x264. That Google managed to remember the > threading parameter only when it helped**** > > VP8 (the speed test) is also quite remarkable.**** > > ** ** > > 3) Regarding IPR, this is a difficult topic, but we're not at all > convinced that VP8 is royalty free. For example, there is an IETF IPR > disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/) where the IPR holder > seems unwilling to license (on any terms), and > http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/german-vp8-infringement-cases-show.htmland > http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-institutes-investigation-of-nokias.htmlshow that there are in fact ongoing litigations regarding VP8 - and this is > only skimming the surface of what is available in public space.**** > > ** ** > > /Bo**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Harald Alvestrand > *Sent:* den 24 oktober 2013 13:12 > *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue**** > > ** ** > > On 10/23/2013 09:42 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:**** > > On 10/23/2013 02:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:**** > > 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?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Harald,**** > > ** ** > > I would like to see some references to the tradition of the IETF that**** > > you've quoted.**** > > ** ** > > For the record, I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to be able to**** > > back up the claim itself with references or explicit decisions that were**** > > made in that regard. I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, just**** > > looking for citations to back up the arguments, both on and off list.**** > > ** ** > > Basil, very happy to provide references! > > RFC 3979, a core document about IPR in the IETF, 2005: > > **** > > 8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups**** > > ** ** > > In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR**** > > claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of**** > > royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion**** > > to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory**** > > terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this**** > > technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims**** > > or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.**** > > > The complete section gives some more details, but this is the central > quote. > > You may also enjoy reading the section of RFC 6569 (the guidelines that > were followed in the OPUS work) that deals with IPR: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6569#page-8 > > > > > **** > > -- **** > > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.**** > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > >
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar