Re: [rtcweb] H.261

>>How will these users react to H.261 QCIF/CIF compared to what they use
today, say Skype for example? "This web shit >>really sucks. I’m going back
to Skype and never trying it again."
How different is this from: "This WebRTC thing is crap, because it doesn't
even show basic video."
What option do you suggest?

>>We previously narrowed the options down to H.264 and VP8 for good reasons
over the course of this excruciatingly long >>decision. Reopening discarded
tangents like H.261 does not move us forward as a workgroup, and certainly
does not move >>webrtc forward as a technology.

No consensus was reached between H.264 and VP8. All that is left now is
H.261, Theora and maybe MPEG 1 Part 2.

On 22 November 2013 07:17, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com> wrote:

>  On 11/21/13 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> wrote:
>
> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>
>
>  Assume this wins and all obey. Chrome does H.261+VP8, Firefox does
> H.261+H.264+VP8, IE does H.261+H.264, Safari does H.261+H.264. According to
> various (incredibly extrapolated, possibly inaccurate and sometimes
> conflicting) sources [1] on who uses what browser, the chance of H.261
> fallback is a whopping 30% [2]. Not the minor insignificant case some had
> assumed.
>
>  How will these users react to H.261 QCIF/CIF compared to what they use
> today, say Skype for example? "This web shit really sucks. I’m going back
> to Skype and never trying it again." Is that the first (and perhaps last)
> impression we want from users that try webrtc? Those arguing crappy video
> is better than no video are ignoring the critical importance of first
> impressions. While some may accept crappy video as usable, many more may be
> permanently turned off and tune out even faster than if they got only
> (good) audio. It’s not as if webrtc is the only game in town. Users have
> options, so it needs to be competitive with competitive technology which
> has already set the bar.
>
>  We previously narrowed the options down to H.264 and VP8 for good
> reasons over the course of this excruciatingly long decision. Reopening
> discarded tangents like H.261 does not move us forward as a workgroup, and
> certainly does not move webrtc forward as a technology.
>
>  Mo
>
>  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
> [2] H.261 fallback % = 2 x VP8-only% x H.264-only% = 2 x Chrome% x (IE% +
> Safari%)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>