Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

Dean Willis <> Fri, 04 May 2012 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE6021F87AB for <>; Fri, 4 May 2012 07:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.648
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wIWhrZ4sFb-M for <>; Fri, 4 May 2012 07:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1C921F87A2 for <>; Fri, 4 May 2012 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so3359778yhq.31 for <>; Fri, 04 May 2012 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QGfaM10YChB8CzRzV92f0b4epEdSv72YnogsTe36WRQ=; b=h7v/zJR6SAXIKQ6KhIeBRKpomzyfwxmEi9ZVuTiHumL4032s4xH9z03f9d6W4DjlH5 uz29LLRKtkUSZBWV/iMAopfflRzZXeGMFUZwPf40rJoR51sBN6qtNkrlm+ESYJwelQcg zGqeXRVTAsEI/aoQI1WEH2jElWpBejkxjerDU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QGfaM10YChB8CzRzV92f0b4epEdSv72YnogsTe36WRQ=; b=KdQhy4atZpzu0/VFtSc2bcY3VGclpPsyGyUcNWAtmGulJA+DJT4/uo8WruGfyEpGlc O0XcogTsEDUB2I0/Bk4zkLRzooZDQvMcEktmwn383UNk1Ma1OgKfptTyZaal6N/a/g1W +BtfPmg2e+vnnKlXb7dWkEKUJ7z7akwRDgi0yH9sNEjT4apwVes4LES0oH5PgQhaLEOg rFMv3SM+2X+k+5hLyXrtoBsypdd53eAwGRy7UJvqdiFaMQnAyuEUpNgVXc0u4tk2Kdar o2DE+Rp7rCLrWcBJGzM4o0rWi9dKLSQ/GWpuMn4X+ieZeG1FzyYA2QyCIwLoTFzOJDT/ b58g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id l12mr2863892oei.47.1336140619469; Fri, 04 May 2012 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 4 May 2012 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 4 May 2012 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120504104446.2d7b2715@lminiero-acer>
References: <5B26F813B14D224999A508377061EDBBB1215C@EX2K10MB1.vb.loc> <> <20120504104446.2d7b2715@lminiero-acer>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:10:19 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Dean Willis <>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f1f8fe528904bf367a0b"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDS80UD+mE1SmnZsoqYtviL92IB2rU2Ztz7CoUhlmlfxKR0BT73U9SuSoI4zHef/q8EWLe
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
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: Fri, 04 May 2012 14:10:24 -0000

On May 4, 2012 3:45 AM, "Lorenzo Miniero" <> wrote:
> Good arguments but this WILL cut out a lot of content producers or
> interested folks. As you pointed out, you asked someone "who develops
> serious enterprise video stuff", not the student, the geeky guy or the
> small startup who wants to try and make some business with a
> "funny-hat-chat" or "send-your-friends-a-silly-postcard" application
> based on RTCWEB, that is, what is supposed to be the real fuel behind
> innovation in RTCWEB in the future.

I am more worried about the guy implementing a WebRTC security camera that
uses an embedded Linux kernel and a software video encoder. Each unit might
"produce" video 24x7. But there is no MPEG-LA licensed browser or OS or
encoder chip to fall back on. The whole product might sell for less than it
might cost him to license the codec.