Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 15/12/2013 11:04 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 7:38 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I've seen multiple VP8 proponents rate the following options as Acceptable:
>>
>> H.261 as MTI
>> Theora as MTI
>> Implement two of [H.261, H.264, VP8] as MTI
>>
>> They might not love the option but they are willing to accept it as a
>> compromise. On the flip side, I've seen multiple H.264 backers rate "H.264 s
>> MTI" as "Yes" and all other options as "No". They did not include a single
>> option as "Acceptable".
> You might try taking a closer look at the survey results. I'm not a mind-reader
> so I don't know what an "H.264 backer" is, but the following people voted
> positively for H.264 and negatively for VP8. I've listed their votes below
> (accreting Yes and Acceptable, since the difference doesn't seem relevant
> here):
>
> Stefan Hakkansson   (264, None, 2/3 [VP8, H263, H.264], 263)
> Bernard Aboba (264 only)
> Sal Loreto (264, None, 263 only)
>
> Perhaps I missed some, since I just went by responses to the thread, but this
> seems sufficient to demonstrate that your characterization of the data isn't
> accurate.
On second thought, I think you're right.

Based on the limited number of straw poll votes cast so far, people 
objected to codecs for one of two reasons:

  * IPR concerns
  * Video quality

VP8 proponents objected to H.264 (and H.263) for IPR reasons, and H.264 
proponents objected to VP8 for IPR reasons.
Some people objected to the use of older codecs for video quality 
reasons (if I remember correctly, VP8 proponents were more willing to 
accept a lower-quality codec than H.264 proponents)
Both objections (IPR and video quality) are quite reasonable.
(I don't view "None" as a compromise. Anyone voting for this is not 
giving anything up. They are saying "I'll do what I want, and you do 
what you want" and they do so at the cost of interoperability.)

At the end of the day, I don't think there is a "right answer" for 
everyone because one business might trade legal risk for high-quality 
video, while another will prefer to trade video quality for reduced 
legal risk. This is a subjective decision which is best left up to the 
business. At the same time, I think the interoperability requirement 
should outweigh this.

Consider what will happen if we end up with "No MTI". Some devices will 
support VP8, others will support H.264. Do people realize that sticking 
a transcoder in the middle exposes you to the exact same IPR risks that 
they are complaining about? I mean, H.264 folks will be force to 
implement VP8 in the transcoder, and VP8 folks will be forced to 
implement H.264 in the transcoder. Doesn't this open you up to the same 
IPR risk as "Both H.264 and VP8 are MTI"?

Gili