pthatcherg

14 ms·

91.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
There is no WebRTC 1.1 yet. 1.0 isn't even done yet. Once 1.0 is done, then work on 1.1 will start. ORTC maybe be adopted in whole or in parts as 1.1, but the future isn't written yet.
92.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
ORTC and WebRTC are separate groups in the W3C. You can think of the ORTC "Community Group" doing more exploratory work on a future version of the API while the WebRTC "Working Group" is finishing the 1.0 version. The
93.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
If you can get a peer-to-peer connection, it's irrelevant whether you're behind a NAT or not. That's what ICE is for: to get a peer-to-peer connection even if you're behind a NAT. Having publicly routable IPv6 addresse
94.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
ORTC doesn't really have anything to do here, except nicer control over some configurations that you can already control with SDP munging. Simulcast/SVC, for example, are irrelevant outside of multiway video. And you can already
95.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
Think of WebRTC 1.1 as a slightly lower-level API with more controls for the same components that exist in WebRTC 1.0. For advanced applications, this additional control is very important. For basic applications, the differences in the AP
96.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
TL;DR: Cisco's solution to binary plugins in Firefox is a "binary module" downloaded from Cisco. Snippets from the text: "One big barrier remains: users can’t collaborate directly from their web browser without download
97.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
You can't have video chat with audio, video, codecs, p2p, the whole thing. The only piece you can remove from the whole and still have video chat work is the data channel. If all you want is the data channel, then you can ignore the a
98.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
While we don't provide a build target for compiling the data channel without the audio and video parts, it's not that hard to remove from the build. It's just some build file hacking (basically remove webrtcvideoengine.cc an
99.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
There are a few different layers to the WebRTC stack. I believe they use the lower layer which does the video and audio processing. But they don't use the higher layers from which do ICE, SCTP, and SDP.
100.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
That would be news to me. They aren't listed in the AUTHORS file: https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/source/browse/trunk/AUTHORS
101.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
It's on my TODO list to try and make Go bindings for WebRTC :).
102.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
I'm pretty sure this RFC draft qualifies as defining the SDP for an independent implementation: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-07#section...
103.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
I applied to Google. They hired me. I worked on Google Talk and Hangouts for many years. WebRTC was related and interesting, so I worked on various parts (such as the data channels) in my 20% time. After a while, I liked it so much I ch
104.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
We put some WebRTC things on github, like AppRTC: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/webrtc/tree/master/samples/w...
105.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
Signalling is already removed from the WebRTC API. ORTC doesn't change that. All would change is not needing to use SDP as the API surface. But that's API surface, not signalling.
106.
by pthatcherg 12y ago
Chrome WebRTC developer here. Two quick thoughts: 1. A better headline would be "Ericsson open-sources another WebRTC implementation". WebRTC is a set of standards, and they are implementing them, which is one of the purposes o
107.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
Chrome has not said it will support H264 in WebRTC.
108.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
That's correct. I updated my comment. By the way, someone else commented further down that Apple doesn't allow third party apps to use it for realtime (video chat). But I can't verify if that's true or not.
109.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
Is it usable for realtime video? Are there any video chat iOS apps that use it? Edit: I mean usable by apps other than Apple-owned apps such as Facetime.
110.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
I sure hope he's wrong. Personally, I think a patent-encumbered MTI codec for WebRTC would be a very bad, especially for the open source community: - You can't have a spec-compliant implementation of WebRTC by compiling and runni
111.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
Only if you use the binary module, not the source code.
112.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
That's the "Good News". Now for the rest of the story: The open source part of this is nearly useless, if not completely so, as evidenced by the fact that Firefox won't be using the source code. The "you don'
113.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
FYI, there is no official standard video codec for WebRTC. For audio, the MTI codec is opus. For video, none has been chosen. So far, the two browsers that implement the WebRTC API have choose to support VP8, but that's not mandated
114.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
If you have enough upload bandwidth to send HD and they have enough download bandwidth to receive HD, at least they'll be able to see you in HD. As for if they have enough bandwidth for HD, there's only one way to find out :)
115.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
Hangouts works with all of the major browsers, including IE. What exactly is your complaint?
116.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
As far as I know, the only issue with large messages is that while they are being sent, they'll reside in memory. But that's true even if you break up the message into smaller pieces and call send() in smaller chunks all at once.
117.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
Thank you for your excitement for data channels and willingness to use the bleeding-edge stuff. I'm the author of the RTP-based data channels in Chrome, and I've been working hard to update those to be SCTP-based data channels.
118.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
I was only guessing about the chrome tab mirroring feature. Are the other features limited to the Pixel?
119.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
It's probably because of CPU power. Encoding high resolution video take a lot of CPU power, and the Pixel has more CPU power than other Chromebooks.
120.
by pthatcherg 13y ago
To do p2p without C++, you have to implement ICE or the equivalent. Sounds like a fun thing to do, especially but it's going to take a lot of work. Then once you're done with that, you'll need to implement reliable delivery

More ›