Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions

[Erik Lagerway <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Erik,
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:56:55AM -0700, Erik Lagerway wrote:
> > Thought it important to point out the fact that FREE-P8 (VP8) would
> likely
> > be the preferred codec implemented by independent developers. Royalties
> and
> > admin headaches create a barrier to entry. Independent dev shops equate
> to
> > a great deal of innovation and some of these have been responsible for
> > dictating the standard in market with hundreds of millions of users. Yes,
> > there is plenty of interoperability with 264 today but that doesn't mean
> it
> > will be that way tomorrow.
>
> Very true.  Though for developers who don't click-track and count users
> of their software it is more than just preferred.  An RF solution is
> actually the only viable way for this standard to be accessible to them.
>
> Any standard that immediately excludes a large portion of potential
> developers and adopters can only ever be of niche value and is certain
> to be replaced before long by an alternative that doesn't have that
> constraint as a fundamental flaw preventing its broadest use.
>
> If the whole point of this group was to avoid further fracturing of
> the developer efforts in this space, then solving this problem now
> would be much preferable to forcing another group to develop another
> competing standard that does address that issue.  It would be a sad
> waste of the invested time of the people here if we didn't recognise
> this necessity.
>
> I think the points you make above are very relevant here.
>
>
> > Can't we do both, as we have done for Audio MTI?
>
> Well, the M in MTI stands for Mandatory.  So mandating both would be
> mandating the barriers to entry that you so clearly identified above?
>
> Mandating an RF video codec, and permitting any other to be negotiated
> as an extension would be more like what we decided was best for audio.
>

Yes, I see your point and agree.


>
>
>
>
> > RTCweb / WebRTC is supposed to be the next big thing, why hamper
> > innovation like this?
>
> Indeed we should not, and I for one certainly hope consensus is
> that we will not.
>

Seems to me that if we want to see the indie webrtc developers flourish, we
need to implement a RF codec = VP8.  Unless of course the MPEG LA decides
to grant a RF license on 264/AVC before the WG votes on the MTI? Which does
not seem likely given the time frame. That plus the fact this 264/AVC non
royalty codec concept was tabled in the past and went nowhere, it seems.

I would like to see us foster grassroots innovation by making this tech
accessible to all developers, which essentially means zero royalty and
admin overhead.


>
>
>  Stay sharp!
>  Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>