Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>]

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=1


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of cowwoc
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 12:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Andrew,

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table
Chrome, Firefox and Opera make up the majority market-share on the desktop and mobile.

Most sources seem to agree that IE is on the decline, while Safari is increasing slowly.

Gili

On 05/12/2014 9:23 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> Adam,
>
> However if you look at it another way:
>
> A majority of the market share of the desktop browser market (Microsoft and Apple) are against this and a significant share of the mobile browser market (Apple, Microsoft and BlackBerry) are against this.
>
> That doesn’t seem to me as major progress towards consensus by the people who are supposed to actually comply with the two MTI decision in order to ensure interoperability. At least not in the real world of shipping product where it really matters.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:50 PM
> To: David Singer; Jean-Marc Valin
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
>
> On 12/5/14 15:26, David Singer wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:58 , Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
>> if you could speak only for yourself, and not others, that might be better.  You’re claiming support by other people here.
>>
> If I read Jean-Marc's statement correctly, it's not speaking on behalf of other people; it's using what they have already said, on the record [1], as a valid part of his rationale.
>
> I'd like to reinforce this sentiment. I support this proposal not because I think it is the best solution, but because it is the first MTI video codec proposal that the actual implementors in this technology space have even remotely agreed on since the discussion began. I support this proposal primarily because it is the only solution we have yet seen that has a credible chance of succeeding.
>
> That's a powerful reason -- at least, for those people invested in this technology -- but it necessarily involves pointing to the positions of others. This is not the same as making statements on their behalf, as you claim; it is merely acknowledging that they've already made such statements.
>
> /a
>
>
> ____
> [1] I'm not going through the effort of gathering citations here, as I would expect that you, and all other involved participants, are sufficiently familiar with the ongoing conversation to make doing so unnecessary. If you'd like to make the claim such positions have *not* been asserted by the parties in question, I'll happily point you to a trove of relevant emails, meeting minutes, slide decks, and audio recordings.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb