Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)

Ron <ron@debian.org> Sun, 10 November 2013 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.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 DC1A621E8135 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 7Tg5xq6xiwvf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332DF21E80E2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-2-240.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.2.240]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2013 17:34:00 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CA54F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:07:11 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UMNHSR7LZ2n3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:07:10 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0E5204F902; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:07:10 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:07:10 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131110063709.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CEA19328.A9A84%stewe@stewe.org> <527D6BFA.9090509@nostrum.com> <20131109055935.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <527DF3E3.7090906@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUFw15fRE9SM7Ts=7FspP0s=N3JWK_BaPMhiBFakZs=OzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUFw15fRE9SM7Ts=7FspP0s=N3JWK_BaPMhiBFakZs=OzA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
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: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:05:19 -0000

On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:36:43AM -0800, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> While I appreciate the effort to gather additional information, I am
> beginning to notice a trend that some of the big players here are
> forgetting about the smaller players.  In particular, there aren't just 4
> browsers in the world, and acting like there are only 4 browsers in the
> world does not look good from a "big players vs. small players"
> perspective.  For example, can we really tell the world that our WG has
> concluded "lots of smaller players can't ship codec X, but we're going to
> mandate it anyway because the 4 big players are willing to ship it" (which
> they haven't, but assuming they did)?
> 
> May I remind you that Firefox, the very browser you represent, until very
> recently, was on the "small player" side of the fence in the codec debate
> and only until very recently (apparently) switched sides?  Perhaps you
> could still engender in yourself some lingering empathy for those other
> small players that cannot necessarily comply with the mandate of certain
> codecs that you are so willingly eager to press upon them.
> 
> You may abandon their cause, you may disregard their complaints, and you
> may disparage their positions, but at least do not cease to acknowledge
> their existence and forget that you were once one them.  There are more
> browsers than 4!

Just on this note, if we're strolling down memory lane ...

if there's to be pleas of "Won't somebody think of the industry giants!",
which seemed to be a core motif of the H.264 presentation, it might be
good to pause for a moment and remember the garage startup roots of the
aforesaid giants currently in the spotlight.

While it may be true that some of those giants kickstarted their enterprise
the hard way, with stolen or otherwise questionably acquired IP [1], I don't
think that's a rite of passage the IETF should encourage for the budding
future giants in this application space.

If the market is as big and important as people say it is, then we're quite
likely defining the incubator environment for one or more of them here [2].
Let's not kill our next generation of chickens before they hatch and grow
to take their place in the pecking order on their own merit [3].

If the giants don't think they can compete on a level playing field, then
there are tacit admissions there too, which surely aren't to the advantage
of potential users of this technology.

  Ron



[1] so sayeth wikipedia.

[2] which may of course be a compelling reason for some existing giants
    to be very keen to lock them out as much as possible.

[3] some of them might even contribute to the economy by paying taxes,
    until they grow big enough to hire enough accountants to fix that :)