Hacker News Reader

Comment by devx | Hacker News Reader

If IE will ever support WebRTC, then they'll have to support VP8, too, which is the standard codec for WebRTC.

So how about Microsoft moves quicker in adopting open standards, instead of backing proprietary ones, or dragging their feet? It took them 2 years to even decide they will use WebGL, finally. I guess it will take them another 2 years for WebRTC.

View on HN

> then they'll have to support VP8, too, which is the standard codec for WebRTC.

It's not. There is no mandatory video codec in WebRTC at this point, only mandatory capabilities namely:

> o MUST support at least 10 frames per second (fps) and SHOULD support 30 fps

> o If VP8 is supported, then it MUST support the bilinear and none reconstruction filters

> o OPTIONALLY offer support for additional color spaces

> o MUST support a minimum resolution of 320X240

> o SHOULD support resolutions of 1280x720, 720x480, 1024x768, 800x600, 640x480, 640 x 360 , 320x240

Source: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-02#secti...

Still hoping Daala can mature and take the throne. If its mathematics truly produce a next generation of compression efficiency in video, and it is open from xiph + Mozilla, that is the biggest kind of win.

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 by the standard.

So far lobbying, from MSFT amongst others, has prevented VP8 being declared a mandatory codec for VP8. On the other hand, Chrome and Firefox are only implementing free codecs (which right now means VP8) so inter operability with the Billions of deployed browser endpoints will require VP8 support.

I guess Microsoft's main concern is opening up another vector for patent lawsuits by shipping hundreds of millions of VP8 decoders. Google doesn't indemnify against VP8 infringements so why would Microsoft pick up the tab when they're already paying for H264?(Which they got sued over by Googorola btw).

As far as I am aware, Google have negotiated an agreement with MPEG-LA to ensure this.

http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/03/vp8-and-mpeg-la.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com