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

"Cavigioli, Chris" <> Tue, 09 December 2014 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7111A1BA9 for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GUARANTEED_100_PERCENT=2.699, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KCSW0ztFD23Y for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1977D1A0217 for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 11:11:32 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,546,1413270000"; d="scan'208,217";a="635149713"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 11:11:32 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:11:32 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:11:31 -0800
From: "Cavigioli, Chris" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
Thread-Index: AQHQE9ZowNIQYgNYl0eTI4IK20km2pyIDo6AgAAQQYD//32nQA==
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:11:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD24012D343fmsmsx115amrcor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:11:37 -0000

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.


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

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:46 , Adam Roach <<>> 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<>