Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

[Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Leon Geyser <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
>> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
>> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
>> decisively
>>
>
> I don't see how that would address it unless the browser vendors really
> care about interoperability. My browser implements the WebRTC without a MTI
> video codec spec and implements H.264; why whould I care about the others?
> I mean the <video> tag has been out there for ages and the marketplace did
> not dictate that H.264 or VP8 should be implemented. It still is split and
> probably will stay like that.



It's a terrible situation for video publishers having to provide two
versions of video files, or support two players (one in HTML5 and one in
Flash). It's not a model that we should follow. In fact, there is a
discussion about making VP8 the baseline codec for <video>, too. However,
everyone is waiting for more details on the MPEG-LA deal and on an update
of the VP8/VP9 license in which Google would hand on their license. It will
be a better situation for discussions then. I have a hunch on what this all
will mean, but there's no need speculating when we can just wait a few
weeks.

Regards,
Silvia.