Google statement on codecs
ietf.org
Google statement on codecs
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Google statement on codecs
#2I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m.
But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#3I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m. But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
> But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business
How?
Apparently Microsoft plans to use WebRTC in the Skype Web client [1]
Re: Google statement on codecs
#4I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m. But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
VP8 is already used in Skype, and half the tech for the audio codec Opus came from Skype's Silk codec so it's not a forgeone conclusion. Possibly Microsoft control changes that equation, but clearly Skype thought this was the future when it was a standalone entity.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#5I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m. But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
> But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business How? Apparently Microsoft plans to use WebRTC in the Skype Web client [1] [1] http://gigaom.com/2012/06/26/skype-webrtc-web-client/
Yep. Skype's selling point isn't its uniqueness. There are plenty of reasonable VoIP options out there, of course. Skype's selling point is its established user base. WebRTC can only help that.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#6I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m. But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
Skype's value isn't a particular technical implementation, it's the install base, directory and related network effects.
WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call providers.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#7Also, Ericsson, in a different thread.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938...
No other companies so far, apparently.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#8The website is down, here's cache:
Re: Google statement on codecs
#9I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m. But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.
Skype is already using VP8. But I'd really hate it if Microsoft (or Apple) acted like assholes and tried to force h.264 or some other proprietary technology into yet another web protocol. Web technologies should be free of patent-encumbered technologies. It's the only way you can ensure its sustainability and you don't run into patent problems a few years down the road.
Re: Google statement on codecs
#10I was hoping Google would adopt Mozilla's Opus codec for audio, but I can't believe they are actually going to do it. Well done, Google!
Will Opus replace Vorbis in WebM as well, though?