- From: Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:37:06 -0400
- To: Ken Smith <smithkl42@gmail.com>
- CC: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51CCBE92.7040104@bbs.darktech.org>
+1 for avoiding gateways if humanly possible. I had the displeasure
of dealing with this in the Flash world and it was hell both from a
technical and scalability point of view. While it is true that some
use-cases will require a gateway (sorry enterprise vendors), it's
important to ensure that the "typical use-case" for web developers
(one-to-one video chat) works out of the box without this headache.
Gili
On 6/27/2013 5:48 PM, Ken Smith wrote:
> Obviously the best option would be to get everyone to agree on using
> only the best codecs out there. But since the earlier debacle over the
> <video> and <audio> tags set an unpleasant precedent in that regard, I
> think it's reasonable to assume that the players in question will once
> again fail to reach that sort of an agreement, whether it's to force
> everyone to use VP8, or force everyone to use H.264, or (even less
> likely) force everyone to use both.
>
> Given that assumption, a decision to implement H.263 or some other
> low-functionality and low-patent-risk codec would certainly be a
> second best outcome.
>
> BUT LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS. (And yes, I'm about to shout. Sorry.) IT
> WOULD BE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE BETTER THAN THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE, OF
> COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE IMPLEMENTATIONS. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO
> IMPLEMENT A GATEWAY EVERY TIME ONE OF MY CHROME USERS WANTS TO TALK TO IE.
>
> Sorry for the shouting. I just wanted to make sure everyone on the
> committee knew how a real user feels about this decision.
>
> Ken Smith
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com
> <mailto:alexey@zingaya.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Smith
> Cell: 425-443-2359
> Email: smithkl42@gmail.com <mailto:smithkl42@gmail.com>
> Blog: http://blog.wouldbetheologian.com/
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 22:37:41 UTC