Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec

> VP8 is the only option that makes any sense for WebRTC going forward.
> It is high performant, it has optimizations for realtime usage (in the
> reference implementation), it is already implemented in a wide variety
> of software (Skype, browsers [Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera]),
> and it is also implemented in hardware (as well as supported by the
> Android OS).
>

So are you saying that Adam's presentation today was incorrect?

Quoting:

"H.264:

More deployed hardware acceleration
Well known, clearly identified patent pool; royalties due for some uses
Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to VP8

VP8:

Can be hardware accelerated, but current deployment is very low
No specific patents asserted1, no one collecting royalties
Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to
H.264"

If so I think you need to be a little more technically specific as to why you see one better than the other.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: 29 March 2012 15:18
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec
> 
> On 03/29/2012 10:09 AM, Monty Montgomery wrote:
> > If we're suggesting ten+ year-old codecs with low patent risk, let's
> > choose an obviously higher performance example.  Dare I say it...
> > Theora?
> >
> > I think we've gotten off track.
> >
> > Twelve years ago, oblique threats were made against the nascent Vorbis
> > by Thomson and the whole world decided it was a patent risk.  It never
> > was.  Fool me once, shame on you.
> >
> > In the mid 2000s, people started picking on Theora the same way, and a
> > few years ago Steve Jobs [and Larry Horn, et al] informed the world he
> > was coming after us. Nothing came of it.  Fool me twice, shame on me.
> >
> > Now we have the same substance-less muttering about VP8, suggesting
> > that it's better to use leftover crumbs from 20 years ago.
> >
> > Fool me three times, I should begin to wonder if I have the requisite
> > capacity to be engaging in technical endeavors.
> >
> > Monty
> > Xiph.Org
> +1
> 
> VP8 is the only option that makes any sense for WebRTC going forward.
> It is high performant, it has optimizations for realtime usage (in the
> reference implementation), it is already implemented in a wide variety
> of software (Skype, browsers [Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera]),
> and it is also implemented in hardware (as well as supported by the
> Android OS).
> 
> No one can say something will never be the target of a lawsuit.  But
> there *are* legal protections against organizations that assert patents
> against a standard after its adoption when they had the ability to make
> the standards body aware of it ahead of time (estoppel).
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb