[RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

[Bernard Aboba]

For video codecs, "self interest" may be influenced by a number of factors.

For example, for a mobile applications developer, "self interest" may focus
on
aspects such as performance, battery life and maintenance costs.  If a given
codec is
supported in the hardware or operating system of their target platform, then
the developer
may perceive it being low "cost" to them. 

For a chipset manufacturer, "self interest" may be determined by the demand
for chipsets
incorporating a given codec, as well as the associated licensing fees.
Typically the goal
is to maximize revenue minus cost, not just to minimize "cost". 

These concepts of "self interest" not necessarily align with each other, let
alone with the 
"self interest" of users, who may primarily care about how many other users
they can connect 
with. 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no]
On Behalf Of David Singer
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:08 PM
To: Heinrich Sinnreich
Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: New Version
Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

Heinrich,

'best' is not always IPR-cost-free.  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
You seem unable to see any other possibility than your own, alas.  I could
wish for 'fates' for any number of technologies, but I don't: I choose them
when they suit, and others when they don't.  I suggest we do the same.

I have no objection to the development and deployment of new codecs, with
varying terms, quality, complexity, and so on. This is a varied market that
deserves varied tools.  I do object to making decisions based on only one
criterion, however.


On Dec 26, 2010, at 18:12 , Heinrich Sinnreich wrote:

>> I think we should consider the balance
>> between cost, risk, quality, and existing adoption, and it would be
foolish to
>> omit cost-bearing codecs from that analysis, as H.264 is widely used
already.
> 
> I am not sure where this discussion is going, though it reminds us of the
> discussions when arguing about SIP vs. H.323 in the IETF.
> "Everybody" was shipping H.323 in overwhelming quantity, but somehow the
> IETF did not buy it.
> 
> As an hopeless optimist; maybe H.264 will have the same fate since at
least
> it's considerable IP baggage is so well known...
> 
> It is hard to imagine the IETF and indeed the market will ignore the
> creativity of all the codec developers out there and the evolving
technology
> that empowers them. Plain self interest should motivate embracing new
> IP-free a/v codecs for the RTC Web. They will arrive anyway one way or
> another. 
> 
> [Well deployed technology has a proven way to make it over the threshold
> into history :-)] 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

_______________________________________________
RTC-Web mailing list
RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web