3 ms·

Wow, this seems like a very backwards move. Just when the truly open source VP8 was set to go in WebRTC, we're opening the discussion about putting h.264 in the

by devx 13y ago

Wow, this seems like a very backwards move. Just when the truly open source VP8 was set to go in WebRTC, we're opening the discussion about putting h.264 in there again? Why?! This seems like a very short sighted move.

mayhew 13y ago
Yeah, I don't think they had to compromise this much. Using the H.264 decoder on the host OS was good enough.
mpyne 13y ago
That's just it, it's not apparent that IETF will mandate VP8 in WebRTC even without Cisco's offer here. Nor can Mozilla go it alone, Chrome has already announced they will also support H264. As Monty himself put it on his personal blog, in the matter of VP8 vs. H264, VP8 lost. This is an appreciated measure by Cisco to mitigate the damage until Daala can be fielded to proactive displace whatever MPEG LA tries to push after H264.
- pthatcherg 13y ago
  Chrome has not said it will support H264 in WebRTC.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  What guarantee is there that a codec which doesn't even exist yet won't lose to Microsoft/Cisco/Nokia/et al the next time we need to standardize a MTI codec in some spec? This seems wishful thinking.
  - graue 13y ago
    No guarantee, but the same team was successful at getting Opus (audio codec) adopted as MTI for WebRTC. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6... On a purely technical level, Opus' performance blew the pants off the other options, which surely helped. If Daala can repeat that performance I think they have a good chance.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      Well, the fact that Skype and Cisco were already onboard and using it helped a bit and that audio codecs don't have the kind of deployment challenge that displacing H264 does. Surely, the argument is going to come around in 2015 or whenever Daala ships that H264/H265 hardware is too widely deployed on billions of mobile devices to justify a new codec. Does Cisco really want to WebRTC to succeed when it clearly commodifies their WebEx offering? The question is, what are they getting by ensuring H264 is MTI? What Mozilla and Google were going to get out of VP8 winning was pretty clear. So one has to ask what their motivation is for spending so much money to keep H264 as MTI.
gcp 13y ago
>Just when the truly open source VP8 was set to go in WebRTC That's not really fair summary of the situation.

by devx 13y ago

mayhew 13y ago

Yeah, I don't think they had to compromise this much. Using the H.264 decoder on the host OS was good enough.

mpyne 13y ago

That's just it, it's not apparent that IETF will mandate VP8 in WebRTC even without Cisco's offer here. Nor can Mozilla go it alone, Chrome has already announced they will also support H264. As Monty himself put it on his personal blog, in the matter of VP8 vs. H264, VP8 lost. This is an appreciated measure by Cisco to mitigate the damage until Daala can be fielded to proactive displace whatever MPEG LA tries to push after H264.

pthatcherg 13y ago
Chrome has not said it will support H264 in WebRTC.
cromwellian 13y ago
What guarantee is there that a codec which doesn't even exist yet won't lose to Microsoft/Cisco/Nokia/et al the next time we need to standardize a MTI codec in some spec? This seems wishful thinking.
- graue 13y ago
  No guarantee, but the same team was successful at getting Opus (audio codec) adopted as MTI for WebRTC. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6... On a purely technical level, Opus' performance blew the pants off the other options, which surely helped. If Daala can repeat that performance I think they have a good chance.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Well, the fact that Skype and Cisco were already onboard and using it helped a bit and that audio codecs don't have the kind of deployment challenge that displacing H264 does. Surely, the argument is going to come around in 2015 or whenever Daala ships that H264/H265 hardware is too widely deployed on billions of mobile devices to justify a new codec. Does Cisco really want to WebRTC to succeed when it clearly commodifies their WebEx offering? The question is, what are they getting by ensuring H264 is MTI? What Mozilla and Google were going to get out of VP8 winning was pretty clear. So one has to ask what their motivation is for spending so much money to keep H264 as MTI.

gcp 13y ago

>Just when the truly open source VP8 was set to go in WebRTC That's not really fair summary of the situation.