Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Really? I've never seen a single P2P video chat app in Flash. What 
specifically does "P2P for real time communication" actually mean?

Gili

On 13/11/2013 6:32 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
>
> > The real revolution is P2P: massive cost savings, ease of deployment 
> and most importantly: cutting out the middle man. The status quo 
> (H.264 over Flash) does not do this.
>
> note: Flash has had P2P for real time communication since 2009.
>
> -michael thornburgh
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *cowwoc
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:32 PM
> *To:* Kaiduan Xie
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not 
> now, when"
>
>
> I agree. I'm just pointing out that John's argument (quoted below) 
> doesn't make any sense. Choosing "no MTI" doesn't make Cisco any more 
> likely to implement VP8.
>
> If we choose "No MTI" we will end up with transcoding, plain and 
> simple. One crowd will only implement H.264. The other crowd will only 
> implement VP8. All the useless middlemen will rejoice, having killed a 
> technology that puts them out of business.
>
> Providing "video chat without a plugin" is not revolutionary. Flash is 
> already installed on 95% of the market. That's more people than WebRTC 
> can reach today, so we're not "liberating" those people from anything.
>
> The real revolution is P2P: massive cost savings, ease of deployment 
> and most importantly: cutting out the middle man. The status quo 
> (H.264 over Flash) does not do this.
>
> P2P cannot work unless 95% of clients can agree on a common codec. I 
> say again: start with H.261 and upgrade to VP8 or H.264. This way 
> everyone can be happy:
>
>   * The VP8 crowd can use VP8
>   * The H264 crowd can use H264
>   * The enterprise crowd can transcode
>   * If all of the above fails, we can fallback on H.261.
>
> Yes, this carries the burden of implementing H.261 but this is a 
> solved-problem. There are plenty of free implementations and is a much 
> easier problem to solve than getting the H.264 and VP8 crowd to agree 
> to implement each other's codec.
>
> Start with H.261 and replace it the moment you find something better. 
> Forcing us to transcode or drop video calls is not a solution.
>
> Gili
>
> On 13/11/2013 4:57 PM, Kaiduan Xie wrote:
>
>     "if an implementer gets sued they can simply drop the codec"
>
>     Thing is not that simple as "simply drop the codec", for some case
>     you still have to pay a lot of money.
>
>     /Kaiduan
>
>
>     On 13/11/2013 11:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>
>                 And I claim that both camps are actually more likely
>             to implement
>             (or allow extensions for) the other side's codec if it is
>             _not_ MTI,
>             simply because they can back out at the first sign of lawyers.
>