Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

Basil Mohamed Gohar <> Mon, 04 November 2013 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7833021E8248 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:54:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXox4d+bFkkU for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4776511E8235 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9F8765A0FF for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:53:32 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:54:27 -0000

On 11/04/2013 12:47 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> To be fair, H.264 interop has not been a painless endeavor over the
> years, in part due to multiple profiles. Implementers have worked
> through many issues to achieve the nearly universal interop enjoyed
> today across hundreds or thousands of vendors and implementations. VP8
> should have an easier time, since it doesn’t have multiple profiles,
> packetization modes, etc. But VP8 will go through some of the same pains
> when many implementations flourish (software and hardware). The pain is
> not felt yet since there are only two vendors (Google and Mozilla) in
> close contact using a shared software implementation.
> Mo

To be even more fair, in fact, there are more than just Google and
Mozilla on the VP8 playing field.  The ffmpeg/libav community(-ies?)
have made a successful implementation of a vp8 decoder (ffvp8) that is
also widely deployed and, to the best of my knowledge, has no known
major problems.

There was also the xvp8 project which, while I believe stalled, was not
due to incompatibilities or challenges, just lack of energy for that
project and motivation.

And there have been many hardware VP8 implementations in silicon across
multiple vendors no less, both for encoding and decoding.

And yes, while H.264 no doubt has a larger market segment, to say Google
and Mozilla are the only two players would not be accurate, and the
design and spec have shown they can be implemented widely and without as
much pain as the, arguably much more complex, (full) H.264 spec.

Libre Video