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

[Henry Sinnreich]

This should mark a good progress for the discussion ending this year and we
hopefully can all agree:

> 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. 

The interests of users must be first and foremost in mind for defining a
standard for the default video codec.

It includes not passing the cost of licensing in perpetuity along to users.

Given a choice for open source and/or free video codecs such as Theora and
VP8, the IETF has several good options to choose from, also defining of a
video codec from ground up.

Thanks,

Henry


On 12/30/10 12:09 AM, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>