5 responses

  1. Philipp Hancke
    November 1, 2013

    I do wonder if Cisco is going to pay any _additional_ money for this…

    There is a reaction from Google: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09338.html — note the careful wording which shows years of experience at the IETF court.

  2. Lawrence Byrd
    November 1, 2013

    Goodness, Chris, what do you really think?! Of course Cisco is protecting it’ turf and looking to expand its business by trying to ensure that standards are aligned with its own existing and future products. What large company is not doing this, including Google and others starting with ‘G’?! Are you leaving the evil corporate world and going native (or to put it in the terms of your article – what on earth were you ingesting in Portland just recently :))? There is nothing unexpected here – Cisco has a large product commitment to H.264 and wants it to be the WebRTC MTI video codec which will greatly simplify integration with their many products while not requiring them to start supporting Google’s codecs and future directions. Makes perfect evil business sense. H.265, VP9, Daala if it is to be believed, are all in the future and await much later IETF decisions, plus once H.264 or VP8 is in there as a core “lowest-common-denominator” MTI it will probably stay there for a long while as other add-on “choices” are added by different vendors. I am not usually a Cisco apologist, and personally I like the VP8/VP9 plan, but I think their announcement clearly shows that they consider WebRTC to be very important, and they therefore want H.264 to be a WebRTC MTI video codec – yes, for all their own obvious evil business reasons.

  3. song zheng
    November 6, 2013

    Great Analogy. To be fair though, Cisco took the first step in the right direction. If they took a few more steps in the right direction they’ll be running full speed toward awesome: http://www.tokbox.com/blog/is-webrtc-ready-for-h-264/

  4. Brett
    November 7, 2013

    While I generally agree with what you’re saying, you have an air of ‘anger’ about it. I agree with Lawrence that this is just a business move … i don’t think we need to bow to Cisco in thanks, but just take it for what it is, and it does have the potential to allow ubiquitous interop sooner rather than later. I don’t think it kills VP8/9 either just yet .. agree with that.

    Constructive criticism: For me, when I see 2-3 grammatical or spelling errors in a short blog such as this, it immediately decreases the credibility of the author. Clean it up!

Back to top
mobile desktop