Re: [rtcweb] Platforms that support H264

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Sun, 03 November 2013 23:41 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 96A0121E8131 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.250, 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 3-FUc-PZFVu3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA1E21E8118 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id qd12so11209683ieb.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:41:12 -0800 (PST)
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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=a5ZrlQt3Bv09QrI9nVx9ZhZ5Z+fgE00T2VYoR87GFEo=; b=bgauY/E5EBh1rJ+1LYFE4Wk9cSp2kGHEjNmLxEJ+q7FCOQKtD4BwhEKHkLzQFUgVPX c0E2dVFJL7muTv0VZ68qXTdoeTXNL/SmnRhGpsy3WosenK8h3zj2AVop9ztsSC6helVV zlo+WAgB/3iiJW/WD7tlQo13dDu8+cdz3nTgFgfeocIwYXDdZvZPLbhrySixFl2cgELj /4+jYlNVOfOO/KrOOvAItCOKi5SEchOdqdf727+j45qHKJFU+WXUsMeOKvDB5PbsA5Id B+MeQQJkyZfuG/j9JSP6a3cT61XkSlSo3fXsoSr1c/oufz4guCrtJ5thUS3qwwYknp3R /NHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYVpSAWrY5joOgXPhgBVkh951KacOo9Xl7gql2aLVdG5RKHATF17Set1G84zzDYoZUr2AP
X-Received: by 10.50.20.226 with SMTP id q2mr9933161ige.11.1383522072426; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w7sm18088500igp.1.2013.11.03.15.41.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5276DF16.8090204@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 18:41:10 -0500
From: cowwoc <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: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <CABkgnnVR9=oWVzRaRuD701tvZCtp+SO1n6c65hJELLVfB8QcOA@mail.gmail.com> <C21C6AC2-29F8-4DFF-BB48-5E3D625DCD65@phonefromhere.com> <CAPvvaaK-bKt-zDEq2qibRrm51VbRGAV=95JShKFdCpJszw5Tww@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMG1ApkN7u_uyO_9H9se22ixLhaYc6pZsncvc6d+k8rEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+eDRkDk5XNDh2QcgLy4wDjrNeCmGJvqac_z+F4r_ev5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOnHGdRCUK2k5ys5n7fs6rYSd+RzMjy13X2J0o2eP2sjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOnHGdRCUK2k5ys5n7fs6rYSd+RzMjy13X2J0o2eP2sjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060803000004090503010808"
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:41:25 -0000

     I have no idea what the future will hold, but I know that as of 
today H.264 does not seem to enjoy much stronger platform support than 
VP8 (with respect to real-time encoding/decoding support).

Gili

On 02/11/2013 6:43 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org 
> <mailto:emcho@jitsi.org>> wrote:
>
>     I'd encourage you to read back.
>
>     This part of the thread started with the claim that most of the
>     time it won't come to downloading Cisco's binary because there is
>     already widespread OS support for H.264 encoding on all OSes
>
>
> I assume you're referring to Bernard's comment? If so, I don't think 
> that's actually
> what he said.
>
> In any case, speaking as someone who actually has to deal with this, 
> it's more
> work to maintain more code paths. Thus, I anticipate using Cisco's 
> binary on
> all desktop platforms and only using platform codecs where it offers a 
> significant
> performance advantage, e.g., on mobile.
>
> On a related note: it's a mistake to assume that just because there aren't
> currently good interfaces to the existing H.264 encoding hardware that 
> those
> interfaces will never exist. For instance, the iPhone clearly has 
> real-time
> capable encoding hardware, and Apple certainly could make it available
> if they wanted. That's a much simpler proposition than adding hardware
> where none exists.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb