Comments on: Microsoft commits to WebRTC – just not Google’s version

By: Michael Hicks

Michael Hicks — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:09:39 +0000

So pretty much Microsoft is saying they will continue to hold up the Internets growth cycle due to ignorance and ability to be a team player. I am not surprised and there will come a day when Microsofts greed catches up to them and they find themselves unable to even sell an OS. I love windows but these guy need to really get on the ball especially when they cant even keep up with the big boys and release a browser in less than a 2 year cycle.

By: babyis60

babyis60 — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:46:23 +0000

WebRTC isn’t a finished spec, neither IETF or W2C have published anything definitive. It’s perfectly reasonable for a participant to contribute alternatives documents for discussion by the groups. Google did this a couple of months back when it drew up the JSEP version which has now replaced the ROAP draft that Cisco wrote earlier. JSEP was an improvement to ROAP and and MS’s new document includes some worthwhile changes.
The timing is unfortunate, but in general that’s how standards are written.

By: Airmaxed

Airmaxed — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:00:59 +0000

MS is worried that if google has their way, there will be no need for skype, as this technology will cross over and work across all browsers in the future. Also ms, was not built on open source. This web rtc is brilliant, and google is king, ms just keep trying to monitize all things internet, and you will be tailing in the world of open source.

By: this is 4g

this is 4g — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:51:18 +0000

I agree, well put.

By: Steve Price

Steve Price — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:49:04 +0000

This is definitely a wrench-in-the-works power play from MS. The WebRTC standard has been in development for TWO YEARS and they chose now, exactly when provisional versions of WebRTC are landing in both Chrome and Firefox, to dump this. Microsoft’s arguments about advocating for more flexibility in the standard is rather spurious, as the established way to improve a standard is to let the standard reach Recommendation status, then add a new layer on top of the existing standard. The whole situation wreaks of Microsoft and and other codec patent-holders trying to preserve their fiefdoms. Not to mention my skepticism about MS moving away from Skype’s walled-garden approach.

By: Tsahi Levent-Levi

Tsahi Levent-Levi — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:15:51 +0000

Besides the issue of slowing down Google with their own implementation, and wanting to squeeze royalties out of H.264 patent licensing, there’s the issue of mindset:

Google works with internet thinking while Microsoft looks at it with enterprise thinking.

My own view? If we add more flexibility and options to WebRTC, we’re going to kill it and slow it down instead of improving it: http://bloggeek.me/webrtc-codec-wars/

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:35:26 +0000

Except that, as it stands today, the WebRTC standard doesn’t specify that you can *only* use these codecs, they just have a set of codecs that *must* be implemented so that interoperability can be achieved.

These codecs are VP8 for video (not best choice in quality but you need to have codecs that can be freely licensed in a standard) and g.711 and Opus for audio (Opus has just been approved by the IETF and actually is the best choice for audio).

So long as Microsoft implement these codecs they can add support for whatever other codecs they want and still interoperate with others.

Skype already uses VP8 for video and have previously committed to using Opus (their SILK audio codec is part of Opus, which they helped design), so i really don’t see what the problem is.

By: Brian Burke

Brian Burke — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:52:15 +0000

MS isn’t saying we want to lock anyone into anything. They are proposing changes that add flexibility in all of the options as far as codecs etc… They say they want it more open than it is.

By: Martin J. Steinmann

Martin J. Steinmann — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:22:20 +0000

In the Microsoft usual way they dumped a completely new Microsoft spec into a standardization effort that has been going on for several years. This is arrogant and not collaborative and shows the difference of the Microsoft approach.

As it relates to codecs of course Microsoft would like to use theirs. Fully proprietary and patent protected, these codecs are the foundation of the Microsoft walled garden. Google’s VP8 is not only open source but came with a free patent grant. Doing so Google transformed a technology into a strategy to change an industry.

If you want innovation, go with open systems and say no to Microsoft’s walled garden.

By: victor

victor — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:13:43 +0000

If I have to download, install and use IE 10 for just Skype, I prefer to download the desktop version and keep using Chrome