Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264

Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Sat, 02 November 2013 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7D021F9F86 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sg8G10oh4TN3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CBF11E8238 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u16so9788668iet.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=8aLwK+3aThZX06NPtGN90eW67jIqHeqtZ7f2lthf3rM=; b=kECzVdIpDlGg8miWm34FDWp8MsYiczJGGrJYB79g69H77yFke4riHD7OiSkgiGSj3s jT0G4L97wmAO1zH52VQynjoyw+GO/QJ7eL4PY5T5u+VOwe0K4YrSNEnMyZXIHISnLmB3 vwFhJnVCEKiMDScel1mf5mwCr6xLkhP+n6y/M5kFE5faq5ECqsoarRIfRui2wmFnsR6K DmbztE2n6xS+DcbVovOYn8PRdRMHopomXHqT4VsU7j/gHysaVQJ9W/4LypOP6MvUG88k MlD2Fdlvz9xV4hU1uQO/nrBLmGQ8hxHIAvV2PHN9ldwbvK3IpqbGHK22Vl0MzVCDKgJ1 ED2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlDIFBPT4GVUkxDF9C677qDTXMlLl2SKHASvmiZ5UHtq7ug2tgPFjEwJ+H9g+jIWN1z+oHI
X-Received: by 10.50.26.70 with SMTP id j6mr6792789igg.24.1383422527492; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.174] ([70.28.107.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w4sm10980737igb.5.2013.11.02.13.02.05 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52755A30.6050206@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:01:52 -0400
From: Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <jlaurens@cisco.com>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <52740478.6030109@nostrum.com> <CAOJ7v-2+_4QZwc8vEtdwVDWSP-d-z+ggB0u+VM6WnA=f-k4-XA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU404-EAS261C783EDA4575EE1A7E53593F40@phx.gbl>, <52750E3C.9060206@bbs.darktech.org> <7943D53D-4ADC-4979-816C-C8F18F457B1A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7943D53D-4ADC-4979-816C-C8F18F457B1A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090806000909000102080600"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:02:13 -0000

     With respect, no. As I keep on repeating, there is a strong need 
for WebRTC outside of the browser. I don't see how I am supposed to 
integrate WebRTC into a closed-source iOS application if H.264 is MTI. I 
would be more than happy to revisit my position once someone provides a 
credible solution.

Gili

On 11/2/2013 11:16 AM, Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens) wrote:
> I suspect iOS will be the worst example. Apple likes h.264 and I think 
> is actually most likely to release a Safari native h.264 WebRTC 
> implementation vs any other option.... And I highly doubt they'll be 
> using Cisco's module
>
> To the degree this is about "enabling web browsers with Real-Time 
> Communications (RTC) capabilities via simple Javascript APIs." they 
> actually could check the box easily... And give you a UiWebView... 
> Which may well make WebRTC wind up being the best way to get hardware 
> 264 support in 3rd party apps... And hence push WebRTC even further.
>
> And as always say "Apple iOS is supporting openness"...
>
> Can't wait for those discussions  :-)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 2, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>     How many platforms *really* support H.264 natively today?
>>
>>     iOS is a great example. On paper, it supports H.264 but in 
>> reality the public API only supports H.264 decoding (not encoding). 
>> Then, when you try using that API for decoding you discover that it 
>> does not support real-time decoding (only decoding from file). So 
>> really, iOS doesn't actually support H.264 as required by WebRTC. 
>> Android is only marginally better in that respect.
>>
>>     I can't think of a single platform that supports real-time H.264 
>> encoding/decoding natively today.
>>
>> Gili
>>
>> On 02/11/2013 7:31 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>> Not sure I understand this completely. Isn't support for "the Rube 
>>> Goldberg Machine" needed only on platforms that do not natively 
>>> support H.264?
>>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com 
>>> <mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also want to reiterate that having a MTI codec means Mandatory To 
>>>> Implement.
>>>>
>>>> That means, that should we decide to go down the H.264 path, 
>>>> Firefox and others will be forced to support this Rube Goldberg 
>>>> machine for obtaining H.264 for an indeterminate amount of time, 
>>>> long after WebRTC has moved on to prefer other codecs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com 
>>>> <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     On 10/31/13 13:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open
>>>>>     source H.264 codec available and usable by the community. We
>>>>>     look forward to seeing the result of this effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully
>>>>>     open, high-quality video codec that you can download, compile
>>>>>     for your platform, include in your binary, distribute and put
>>>>>     into production today - is the best choice of a Mandatory to
>>>>>     Implement video codec for the WebRTC effort.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     I agree with Harald that VP8 is a better codec than H.264
>>>>     baseline in a number of important ways.
>>>>
>>>>     But I also want to reiterate that having an MTI codec has never
>>>>     been about choosing the best codec or even a good codec. It's
>>>>     about choosing an emergency backup codec-of-last-resort. It's
>>>>     about having one single mandated codec that everyone has in
>>>>     their back pocket in case nothing else works.
>>>>
>>>>     The core of RTCWEB is about session *negotiation*. Endpoints
>>>>     will negotiate the best codec they have in common. Once the
>>>>     next generation of codecs come out, this "best codec in common"
>>>>     will only be the MTI if they were about to fail anyway.
>>>>
>>>>     So it doesn't have to be good.
>>>>
>>>>     It just has to be better than failure.
>>>>
>>>>     /a
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     rtcweb mailing list
>>>>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb