Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

Paying for codecs is cost of doing business.

-          The whole TV ecosystem uses MPEG-2, H.264, etc ... MPEG or Dolby audio ...

-          The whole mobile phone ecosystem uses H.264, AMR, etc …

-          All cameras and displays use standard codecs

-          Almost all online content today is using standard codecs

-          Paying for codecs pays for research labs to continue their research to invent new things

-          There is no performant codec today that is 100% guaranteed royalty free – that is a mirage

The problem I see is that MPEG-LA or other patent pooling organizations don’t typically have a provision for small and medium-sized businesses as they probably don’t have a deep IP portfolio in this space.  That is the problem that should be fixed going forward.

-chris

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:45 AM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:46 , Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:

>

> On 12/9/14 11:32, David Singer wrote:

>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to...

>

> Wait, you're pressing other companies for future product plans? With the implication that doing so is a prerequisite to participating in the discussion?

>

> That's a mighty sharp blade there. You might check where it's pointed.

Yes, I realize that almost no-one can make promises about what they will ship. And some companies will be in a position where they can’t say anything.  And yes, my company has a strict policy of not promising what we will or won’t do in the future.  But, hypothetically, if the statement was “must support H.264” I could clearly indicate that that I expect it to be unproblematic.

But surely those that see the dual mandate as unproblematic for them to implement can say that, can’t they?  Surely we can see at least a reasonable number of “yes, we would hope/expect/intend to ship both”, as a non-binding indication?

I mean, the draft ‘must do both’ would require people who have a principled objection to paying fees, having to pay for H.264. I am curious, are people willing to let their principles (and money) go, in order to comply with the ‘must’?

Obviously, I am trying to assess whether this compromise would, in fact, be effective in practice — would enough people abide by its intent that we’d get the interoperability that is the point of the mandate?  I don’t want to be citing RFC 6919 :-).

David Singer

Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

_______________________________________________

rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb