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

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

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.
>