Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 13/11/2013 3:02 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 05:55 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>>     Both H.264 and VP8 deserve "SHOULD implement" status. Neither,
>> IMHO, will achieve consensus for "MUST implement" status. Yes, this
>> is a sorry state to find ourselves in. But the marketplace has
>> sorted out much worse problems in my memory.
>>
>>     And I claim that both camps are actually more likely to implement
>> (or allow extensions for) the other side's codec if it is _not_ MTI,
>> simply because they can back out at the first sign of lawyers.
>>
>>     I will not go into any details about how VP8 endpoints might talk
>> to H.264 endpoints, but I'm _very_ confident ways will be found if
>> we actually _publish_ an RFC saying both are "SHOULD implement".
> I don't know if many noticed it, but one reason for my fiddling with
> devices to show Hangouts working on stage at the meeting was to show
> that transcoding is in fact working in real services that people are
> using on a day-to-day basis.
>
> Sure, it's not optimal. In fact, it hurts. But it's not the end of the
> world either.

So... we're throwing P2P out of WebRTC?

If you mandate H.261 as MTI, big business can still do transcoding and 
the rest of us can use H.261. Small business shouldn't have to choose 
between transcoding and dropping the call.

Gili