8 ms·

Safari has purposefully neutered WebRTC, both Firefox and Google have full codec support while Apple tries to push H.264 only, plus things like web push still d

Safari has purposefully neutered WebRTC, both Firefox and Google have full codec support while Apple tries to push H.264 only, plus things like web push still doesn't work on iOS: https://webrtchacks.com/safari-webrtc/ https://webrtchacks.com/safari-webrtc/ Google Meet also appears to have updated to support the WebRTC spec (rather than the oddball implementation Chrome had) so long as your browser supports it: https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-now-supported-by-google-hangouts-and-meet/ https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-now-supported-by-...

ksec 8y ago
I thought H.264 is free for Software Decode? Supported in Firefox as well. There is no reasons why Apple should support VP8 / 9 Which is a Google's Codec, even though it is free of charge.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  H.264 isn't free, Cisco is footing the licensing bill for support in most software (including Firefox): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementatio... This is why Mozilla is pushing AV1 and VP8/VP9 so hard, being stuck with H.264 as the whole industry migrates to H.265 due to bandwidth savings is a major impediment, and the licensing body could easily extract usurious rent for H.265 if it becomes the only reasonable option: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/08/the-video-wars-of-2027/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/08/the-video-wars-of-2027/
  - ksec 8y ago
    Sorry I got mixed up, but it should be free for anyone which has H.264 hardware decode. Which is like 95%+ of All PC / Tablet / Smartphone sold in the last 5+ years. And that article from Mozilla, I remember it, worst article from Mozilla for as long as I remember ( That is since Netscape Era ).
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      Rejecting VP8/VP9 due to Google's involvement is silly and pointless, they're free to use codecs that are much more efficient than H.264. Apple has made its choice to push H.264 & H.265 due to their vested interest in the licensing revenue they stand to gain via the MPEG LA.
      - gruez 8y ago
        Apple has made its choice to push H.264 & H.265 due to their vested interest in the licensing revenue they stand to gain via the MPEG LA. If that’s true, why are they a member of the AOM, which promotes the royalty free av1?
        StudentStuff 8y ago
        How long can Apple push against all of the major content providers? Google, Netflix, Mozilla, AT&T & the plethora of other streaming providers will not fully support H.265, and Apple doesn't want to not have a seat at the table as they build a codec to supplant it. I think this is a repeat of the USB C engineering participation by Apple, they may roll it out to their tiny MacOS install base, but it could be years before AV1 is supported on iOS. Safari on iOS is where Apple likes to draw its line in the sand, it also happens to be where they have nearly 1 billion users, versus 70 million on MacOS: https://ngcodec.com/news/2018/10/9/whats-in-a-codec-hevc-versus-vp9 https://ngcodec.com/news/2018/10/9/whats-in-a-codec-hevc-ver...
eridius 8y ago
While it's true that Safari only supports H.264, Google already produces quite a lot of H.264 video. In fact, Google has a Google Meet iOS app; I don't suppose you have any idea if they push H.264 to that app, or if they've actually embedded a software VP8/9 encoder/decoder into the app? I sincerely hope it's the former for battery life reasons if nothing else (though we already know Google doesn't seem to care about power efficiency). What does Web Push have to do with WebRTC?
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  WebRTC was created to replace the need for apps that handle calling, without web push notifications (like every other WebRTC supporting browser has) there is no way for inbound calls to cause the phone to receive a notification unless Safari is open and has the webpage pulled up. WRT VP8/VP9, bandwidth is much more of a concern than you make it out to be. Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low (say hello to congested towers, or fringe 700Mhz coverage where 500Kbps is all you get :P), thus the best compression possible ensures that video quality and usability is top notch. By restricting video to H.264, your stuck with a legacy codec that has relatively poor compression rates compared to the other standardized codecs. Is it good for interop with a 2005 era deskphone? Sure, but not much else.
  - eridius 8y ago
    Google Meet is a video conferencing app, not a telephone replacement. AFAIK there's no way to "call" someone. So Web Push seems to be rather irrelevant. > Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low I'm not using Google Meet on a cellular network. I'm using it on a wifi network. And if it comes to it, I'd rather have slightly worse video quality with H.264 than slightly better video quality with VP8/9 if it means it preserves my battery life (which is to say, set a network bandwidth target and then use whatever video quality meets that target). > By restricting video to H.264, your stuck with a legacy codec that has relatively poor compression rates compared to the other standardized codecs. It's apparently really hard to find an actual practical comparison of compression quality of H.264 vs VP8. What info I did find is about 8 years old now and itself was pretty wishy-washy. My vague impression of all of this is "lots of people think VP8 has better compression quality, but won't say by how much, while other people think you can get about the same results, but either way VP8 is rarely hardware-accelerated on mobile". In any case, if you want better than H.264, how about H.265, which macOS and iOS both support? I have no idea if WebRTC allows the endpoints to negotiate alternative codecs, and I'm having difficulty finding the answer to that.

ksec 8y ago

I thought H.264 is free for Software Decode? Supported in Firefox as well. There is no reasons why Apple should support VP8 / 9 Which is a Google's Codec, even though it is free of charge.

StudentStuff 8y ago
H.264 isn't free, Cisco is footing the licensing bill for support in most software (including Firefox): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementatio... This is why Mozilla is pushing AV1 and VP8/VP9 so hard, being stuck with H.264 as the whole industry migrates to H.265 due to bandwidth savings is a major impediment, and the licensing body could easily extract usurious rent for H.265 if it becomes the only reasonable option: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/08/the-video-wars-of-2027/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/08/the-video-wars-of-2027/
- ksec 8y ago
  Sorry I got mixed up, but it should be free for anyone which has H.264 hardware decode. Which is like 95%+ of All PC / Tablet / Smartphone sold in the last 5+ years. And that article from Mozilla, I remember it, worst article from Mozilla for as long as I remember ( That is since Netscape Era ).
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Rejecting VP8/VP9 due to Google's involvement is silly and pointless, they're free to use codecs that are much more efficient than H.264. Apple has made its choice to push H.264 & H.265 due to their vested interest in the licensing revenue they stand to gain via the MPEG LA.
    - gruez 8y ago
      Apple has made its choice to push H.264 & H.265 due to their vested interest in the licensing revenue they stand to gain via the MPEG LA. If that’s true, why are they a member of the AOM, which promotes the royalty free av1?
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        How long can Apple push against all of the major content providers? Google, Netflix, Mozilla, AT&T & the plethora of other streaming providers will not fully support H.265, and Apple doesn't want to not have a seat at the table as they build a codec to supplant it. I think this is a repeat of the USB C engineering participation by Apple, they may roll it out to their tiny MacOS install base, but it could be years before AV1 is supported on iOS. Safari on iOS is where Apple likes to draw its line in the sand, it also happens to be where they have nearly 1 billion users, versus 70 million on MacOS: https://ngcodec.com/news/2018/10/9/whats-in-a-codec-hevc-versus-vp9 https://ngcodec.com/news/2018/10/9/whats-in-a-codec-hevc-ver...

eridius 8y ago

While it's true that Safari only supports H.264, Google already produces quite a lot of H.264 video. In fact, Google has a Google Meet iOS app; I don't suppose you have any idea if they push H.264 to that app, or if they've actually embedded a software VP8/9 encoder/decoder into the app? I sincerely hope it's the former for battery life reasons if nothing else (though we already know Google doesn't seem to care about power efficiency). What does Web Push have to do with WebRTC?

StudentStuff 8y ago
WebRTC was created to replace the need for apps that handle calling, without web push notifications (like every other WebRTC supporting browser has) there is no way for inbound calls to cause the phone to receive a notification unless Safari is open and has the webpage pulled up. WRT VP8/VP9, bandwidth is much more of a concern than you make it out to be. Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low (say hello to congested towers, or fringe 700Mhz coverage where 500Kbps is all you get :P), thus the best compression possible ensures that video quality and usability is top notch. By restricting video to H.264, your stuck with a legacy codec that has relatively poor compression rates compared to the other standardized codecs. Is it good for interop with a 2005 era deskphone? Sure, but not much else.
- eridius 8y ago
  Google Meet is a video conferencing app, not a telephone replacement. AFAIK there's no way to "call" someone. So Web Push seems to be rather irrelevant. > Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low I'm not using Google Meet on a cellular network. I'm using it on a wifi network. And if it comes to it, I'd rather have slightly worse video quality with H.264 than slightly better video quality with VP8/9 if it means it preserves my battery life (which is to say, set a network bandwidth target and then use whatever video quality meets that target). > By restricting video to H.264, your stuck with a legacy codec that has relatively poor compression rates compared to the other standardized codecs. It's apparently really hard to find an actual practical comparison of compression quality of H.264 vs VP8. What info I did find is about 8 years old now and itself was pretty wishy-washy. My vague impression of all of this is "lots of people think VP8 has better compression quality, but won't say by how much, while other people think you can get about the same results, but either way VP8 is rarely hardware-accelerated on mobile". In any case, if you want better than H.264, how about H.265, which macOS and iOS both support? I have no idea if WebRTC allows the endpoints to negotiate alternative codecs, and I'm having difficulty finding the answer to that.