Re: Mandatory vs optional codecs

H263 is not a good idea. There should be a better solution for the
problem. For example , making both codecs mandatory.

6/27/13 9:32 PM пользователь "Gili" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> написал:

>On 6/27/2013 12:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>> Ending the VP8/H264 war: A proposal was made to mandate a
>>> patent-unencumbered codec (whose patents have expired or are not
>>>enforced)
>>> as mandatory and optionally upgrade to other codecs such as VP8 or H264
>>> depending on peer capabilities and personal preferences. VP8 guys can
>>>use
>>> VP8. H264 guys can use H264. And if the two camps need to chat with
>>>each
>>> other they can fall back on H263. This gives you the flexibility of
>>> arbitrary codecs without the need to do transcoding.
>> I'd just like to note that this is not a new proposal and has had
>> extensive discussion. If you search for it, you will find a lot of
>> discussion about it.
>Hi Silvia,
>
>     Next time please change the subject line when discussing individual
>items, as the original email requested.
>
>> In summary, it has been rejected mainly because it's a huge step
>> backwards in encoding quality, which would take away a big reason of
>> the uptake of WebRTC.
>
>     This is only true when mixing parties which cannot agree on a
>higher-end codec. If the connected peers agree on a higher-end codec
>(which will be the case most of the time) you will get an excellent user
>experience.
>
>     My own take is that H264 and VP8 proponents are lying to themselves
>if they believe that they can force their views on others. I don't see
>Microsoft, Apple convincing Google to accept a mandatory H264 codec or
>the other way around (VP8 for Microsoft and Apple). What I am proposing
>is the lesser evil, when compared to not being able to connect to such
>endpoints or being forced to do transcoding.
>
>     To be clear, this is a legal and political matter. I don't
>appreciate people trying to mask these issues by bringing up technical
>arguments. This is perfectly doable from a technical perspective. We
>don't need "the best" codec. We need a "good enough" baseline codec and
>the ability to upgrade to "the best" codec if so desired.
>
>     Using H262 as a fallback means higher bandwidth usage for the same
>visual quality. It only affects a tiny minority of cases and it's worth
>noting that this problem is quickly going away, as the average internet
>connection is improving by leaps and bounds with every passing year.
>This is a self-correcting problem.
>
>     Patents issues are not going away anytime soon. Also, by taking
>this approach there is far less incentive for a malicious company to sue
>in the future because we've got an alternative to fall back on.
>
>> Also, the assumption that it's unencumbered when
>> it's a known IPR-enforced format is flawed.
>
>     I don't understand. How is H262 an IPR-enforced format? I gave
>H262/H263 as an example but don't get stuck on the specifics. Feel free
>to use the best patent unencumbered codec you can find.
>
>> In comparison VP8 provides
>> much higher quality and has the IPR agreement with MPEG-LA behind it
>> and the license statement stops companies that are using the codec
>> from suing on the codec. The Nokia court case around VP8 should
>> further clarify the IPR situation around VP8 and, given the already
>> widespread support of VP8, it seems likely that this is the last test
>> on VP8.
>
>     This is a positive development but in no way guarantees that more
>Nokia-like situations won't arise in the future. VP8 could be safe (for
>the record, I personally think it is) but we don't know for sure.
>Mandatory codecs should have expired patents, period. There is no risk
>there.
>
>> Given that the choice of H.263 would be a huge step backwards, the
>> easiest way to resolve this seems to me to just wait for the court
>> resolution. We're much better informed after that.
>
>     "A huge step backwards" is subjective and vague. Again, we're not
>shooting for "the best" codec. We're shooting for "good enough with the
>ability to upgrade to the best".
>
>     I oppose waiting for the court resolution. Who knows how long it'll
>take and, in any case, the outcome does not prevent other cases from
>being raised in the future. If millions of users jump on board, VP8
>becomes a juicy target for patent trolls. There isn't much you or anyone
>else can do about this.
>
>Gili
>

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 17:38:21 UTC