Comments on: Microsoft pushes ahead with its own take on WebRTC

By: Dick Tracey

Dick Tracey — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:57:39 +0000

Google and Apple they just follow they leader and their daddy, Microsoft

By: Dick Tracey

Dick Tracey — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:56:55 +0000

Like always Microsoft has the great ideas

By: Roy Appfan

Roy Appfan — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:28:36 +0000

Any protocol or framework trying to address interoperatibility problem is seldom successful, especially if the protocol or framework are driven by a specific company with its own purpose. RPC, CORPA, EJB, SOAP, WebRTC….

No two vendors implemented the stack the same way, with the result of getting one stack to talk to another one could be a nightmare.

By: Roy Appfan

Roy Appfan — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:25:34 +0000

Jose de Castro is right on and he’s telling the truth.

No two vendors implemented the stack the same way, with the result of getting one stack to talk to another one could be a nightmare

By: Erik Lagerway

Erik Lagerway — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:12:42 +0000

+1 Jose, this is not helping.

By: Asa Dotzler

Asa Dotzler — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:35:56 +0000

WebRTC has no mandatory to implement codec (yet) but some kind of baseline codec seems useful if you want users with different browsers to be able to talk to each other. WebRTC absolutely does not and will not disallow browser vendors using H.264. But, it’s worth remembering that real-time codecs have different characteristics than other codecs. Opus, for example, is a real-time audio codec that beats all of the other real-time audio codecs substantially and it has nothing to do with the AAC codec that makes up the audio part of what people call H.264 video.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:59:10 +0000

Can a codec sit that high on the stack, at the application layer? I know calls can be made from the app layer to a codec on the lower network layer.

By: Robert Welbourn

Robert Welbourn — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:05:49 +0000

Let’s not forget that there’s an awful lot of H.264 out there, particularly in mobile devices and video conferencing systems. It makes sense to allow WebRTC to be interoperable with those.

By: Jose de Castro

Jose de Castro — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:15:57 +0000

Ugh. It’s like SOAP all over again where transport neutrality laid birth to a standard that was so open and complex that’s many argue was dead before it started. Sure, Internet standards should strive to be imclusive but never at the cost of practical utility.

By: Roy Appfan

Roy Appfan — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:06:02 +0000

Microsoft’s approach makes sense as VP8 codec is not good. If you deep dive, you will know why Google’s other products like Google Hangout do not use VP8 at all!

Google wants to leverage WebRTC to gain browser market share for Chrome; So does Microsoft for IE 10 with CU-WebRTC.