Re: [rtcweb] On demand & Internet TV via rtcweb? (was: Current H.264...)

[David Benham <[e-mail]>]

Suggesting that walking around your apartment for prospective renters to
see, showing the taxi driver your location or consulting on how to put
icing on a wedding cake during a call have somehow crossed over in to
providing on-demand titles or broadcast TV is, as they say in showbiz,
'jumping the shark.'

Even if we weren't heading down the rfc3929 path, doubt the a goal of
making it attractive to on-demand titles or broadcast TV to use rtcweb vs
other more technically apropos in html5/Internet ways would rank in the
decision criteria.

Yielding the email floor back to that important rfc3929 path discussion.



On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM, tim panton <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 8 Nov 2013, at 19:11, David Benham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Bet the vast majority of those 800 app developers' business model is to
> make money off *others* Internet content vs themselves being the provider
> of such.  If they are doing that legally, those licenses and
> royalties/revenue sharing arrangements are often really complex.
>
>
> Well 50 of them are p2p messaging apps (so called OTT players) - where the
> content is _absolutely_ generated
> by their users.
>
> But I’m more thinking of the rent-my-appartment app where the owner can do
> a live video tour, or perhaps remote assist for
> using the cooker. The rt-video is a nice-to-have but they certainly won’t
> spend time with the MPEG-LA’s lawyers
> to add it.
>
> Likewise the summon-a-prepaid taxi app - it might be nice to show the
> driver where you are waiting with live video,
> but it is only spice to the main app purpose. Again these guys won’t do
> video if it means they have to distract them selves with lawyers when they
> hit the 100k user mark.
>
> Or one of the _infinite_ number of wedding planner apps - perhaps they’d
> add a live consult feature, but not if
> it cost legal time and money to do.
>
>
> Regardless, how many providers of on-demand titles and broadcast TV over
> the Internet would use rtcweb to deliver such no matter which codec was
> MTI?
>
>
> I have no idea, those aren’t the markets I know about. They are businesses
> where the _key_ point is video delivery,
> I think there are a lot of interesting apps where it is the icing on the
> wedding cake (so to speak), we risk losing those folks from webRTC.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Tim Panton new <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting datapoint on the >100K subscribers front.  From Flurry - (via
>> @BenedictEvans) There are at
>> least 800 app developers with > 1M subscribers. So there seem to me to be
>> quite a few 'Little guys' who
>> may avoid webRTC if it requires an H264 license .
>>
>> http://blog.flurry.com//bid/102208/the-mobile-content-exlposion
>>
>>
>>
>
>