Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Ron <ron@debian.org> Mon, 04 November 2013 18:11 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 AEFF521E822F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:11:30 -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 p2gjTTU-4g-w for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9751A21E821B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp118-210-230-117.lns20.adl6.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([118.210.230.117]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 04:41:13 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB814F8F3; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:35:37 +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 12felVnYnGD6; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:35:36 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CFD1E4F902; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:35:36 +1030 (CST)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 04:35:36 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
Message-ID: <20131104180536.GZ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <20131102124801.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CA+23+fE1S_K93xk+3WNbq1RAFt8QD++pF74OJowu_+qz71H91g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fE1S_K93xk+3WNbq1RAFt8QD++pF74OJowu_+qz71H91g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:11:31 -0000
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:58:23AM -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > I do not believe that "genuinely free" is the only, nor even the primary, > consideration here. > > I believe we should in general be thinking about what it takes to make > webRTC successful. And more than anything else, that means making it a > platform that application developers can utilize. If we do our jobs well, > we'll have many thousands (hundreds of thousands even) of applications on > the web that are enabled with real-time comms and frankly a great many of > them will know nothing about codecs or the nuances of MPEG-LA licensing. > What are the considerations for making webRTC attractive to them? > > I assert that the primary thing they'll want is to interconnect their > application with some kind of video network or user base that can add value > to their application. Let me give an example. Lets say there is a bank, and > this bank wants to add the ability for a user to look at their investment > portfolio online, click a button, and have a voice/video call with their > investment advisor. To build such an app into their existing banking web > app, the bank will need webRTC to connect to the voice and video contact > center and clients their investment advisors have. Today, all of that is > based on H.264. And 'tomorrow' it will be based on something else that is better. I don't think anyone in either camp doubts that change is in progress. > So - I would assert that frankly our primary consideration for webRTC is > interoperability. And interoperability as a requirement clearly points to > H.264. Interoperability as a requirement clearly points to the fact that selection of a MTI codec that is Free in as many dimensions as possible is absolutely *essential* for the future success of WebRTC. How can you have interoperability if a significant portion of potential implementers are fundamentally prohibited from distributing the MTI codec? You are talking here of interoperability with legacy equipment, which the WG charter explicitly notes is something to be considered on a best effort basis only, not something to sacrifice other goals over. I'm talking about interoperability with _all_ future implementations of *this* standard. If some people can't distribute the MTI codec, then we have already guaranteed interoperability failure and a forking of the developer and user base. Before we've even got started. The Cisco announcement does indeed make it possible that more people than otherwise might have would also be able to provide H.264, both as a negotiation option and for creating gateways to legacy equipment. That can only be a good thing, for which I'm sure many will be grateful. But it's still not without significant problems, as many people here have already indicated, and it still doesn't come close to either the immediate freedom, or assurance of future availability, or out of the box quality, that we would have by choosing VP8 today. And that _is_ more than anything what it will take for WebRTC to be successful in an already fragmented application space. > There are other considerations too. Some of the ones I'd list are: > > * Interoperates with install base Which means all installed WebRTC applications need a freely available codec and solid guarantees of always being able to distribute it. > * Widespread deployment Which will come once there are many implementations of WebRTC that meet a wide range of users needs. A codec with limited freedoms means limited deployment. Kind of by definition. > * Appeals to the existing set of video application developers - in other > words, the biggest consumers of webRTC should be the folks who are already > providing video communications applications on the Internet (which by > definition none of them do so natively from the browser). Don't we want > them to come to the web with webRTC? As you noted above, most of them care nothing about the nuances of codec selection - they just need it to be available on all of their target platforms, and they need to be able to distribute their apps on their own terms, that meet their needs and the needs of their users. Requiring all their users to download a separate plugin blob before their application will work at all, if it's actually still even available at the time they need it, is both a huge barrier and a huge risk. Who do I complain to and what recourse do I have if my customers cannot download it because of a temporary or permanent outage of the only legal download site? > * Available widely in hardware - especially mobile phones I think the earlier discussion on this point has cast a pretty deep shadow over how actually available hardware H.264 is to developers in general on pretty much every platform. > * Broad availability of expertise > * Broad availability of toolsets > * Multiple codebases and implementations to choose from Again, all excellent points that point to the necessity of a Free codec selection which encourages the maximum possible diversity. > And none of that has anything to do with IPR or royalties. I wouldn't go quite that far, but indeed the important question is which choice places the least restrictions on the broadest number of potential WebRTC developers and users. And on that question, it still seems clear that the evidence indicates it is a no-brainer to see that of the currently proposed candidates, VP8 wins on this very important point hands down. Ron > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:47:31PM +0100, 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. > > > > This is my belief also. > > > > While the Cisco announcement is certainly an interesting approach to trying > > to extricate their existing technology investment from the deep quagmire of > > encumbrances that currently bind it, the result still falls well short of > > not only the ideal, but also the already existing alternative choices that > > we have available to us. > > > > Given the choice between a genuinely Free option, that anyone is free to > > improve and distribute however they wish - and a no-cost binary-only option > > that is available from only a single supplier, while Happy Hour lasts - the > > decision still seems to be something of a no-brainer. Even before you also > > consider that the Free Option is not constrained to only its lowest > > possible > > performance mode in the implementation that is available to people today. > > > > VP8 still seems like the only obvious and enduring choice for an MTI codec > > for WebRTC at present. > > > > Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcemen… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Doug Geistkemper
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Alexandre GOUAILLARD
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Simon Pietro Romano
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Alessandro Amirante
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Eric Rescorla
- [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Congra… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Bossiel
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Bossiel
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Bossiel
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Kaiduan Xie
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 (was: Co… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [rtcweb] API standardization on phones? (Re: Plat… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] API standardization on phones? (Re: … DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Ralph Giles
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Kristian Kielhofner
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Gustavo Garcia
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Krasimir Kolarov
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Krasimir Kolarov
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announc… David Singer