Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Microsoft Finally Intros Its Own WebRTC Proposal

By - Source: Microsoft | B 14 comments

Microsoft has proposed its own customizable, flexible version of WebRTC.

On Monday, Microsoft introduced its own WebRTC proposal to the W3C WebRTC working group called "Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web," or rather, CU-RTC-Web. It's a step towards bringing real-time VoIP communication -- AKA Skype -- to a variety of browsers without the need for an application or plug-in. It's also aimed to be more flexible and customizable than versions currently offered by Google and Mozilla.

"It is designed to honor the key tenets of the web architecture, it supports a customizable response to changing network quality, ubiquitous deployability on existing network infrastructure, and flexibility in supporting popular media formats and codecs, as well as openness to future innovation," reads the specification's abstract."

Microsoft claims the existing WebRTC proposal falls short as it shows no signs of offering real world interoperability with existing VoIP phones, and mobile phones from behind firewalls and across routers. Instead, the current version -- which is already supported by Firefox, Opera and Chrome -- focuses on video communication between web browsers under ideal conditions, and doesn't allow an application to control how media is transmitted on the network.

Matthew Kaufman, principal architect for Microsoft-Skype on WebRTC, told GigaOM that the existing WebRTC proposal is working to create a black box within the browser: everything is pre-determined from the way media is sent over the network to what codec needs to be used, leaving little room for optimization. However Microsoft's CU-RTC-Web proposal offers the customization and flexibility developers need while also supporting legacy devices.

Kaufman also pointed out that Google and Mozilla want to lock down their specifications to the VP8 video codec open sourced by Google back in 2010. Microsoft doesn't want to take that route, stating that "a successful standard cannot be tied to individual codecs, data formats or scenarios." Instead, CU-RTC-Web will support a number of "popular media formats and codecs as well as openness to future innovation."

In Microsoft's blog post on Monday, the company highlighted the three main features of its new proposal offers:

* It adds a real-time, peer-to-peer transport layer that empowers web developers by having greater flexibility and transparency.
* It dispenses with the constraints imposed by unnecessary state machines and complex SDP and provides simple, transparent objects.
* It builds on and integrates with the existing W3C getUserMedia API, making it possible for an application to connect a microphone or a camera in one browser to the speaker or screen of another browser.

"We are looking forward to continued work in the IETF and the W3C, with an open and fruitful conversation that converges on a standard that is both future-proof and an answer to today’s communication needs on the web," Microsoft said on Monday. "We would love to get community feedback on the details of our CU-RTC-Web proposal document and we invite you to stay tuned for additional content that we will soon publish on http://html5labs.com in support of our proposal."

To read Microsoft's CU-RTC-Web proposal to the W3C, head here.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 14 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -9 Hide
    jhansonxi , August 7, 2012 1:40 AM
    Another standard from the company that brought ActiveX to email. This proposal seems like an attempt to keep their ridiculous Skype "investment" from becoming obsolete.
  • -2 Hide
    gomez123 , August 7, 2012 1:54 AM
    You sound angry? Still regretting spending that $3,000 on a crApple laptop or is that Android phone of yours still stuck on Froyo. Oh, poor baby.
  • 1 Hide
    Shin-san , August 7, 2012 2:30 AM
    I think this is very possible. Microsoft has a lot of potential money to be made from Skype communications
  • -6 Hide
    A Bad Day , August 7, 2012 2:37 AM
    Skype: No, go away Microsoft
  • 3 Hide
    ravewulf , August 7, 2012 2:58 AM
    Microsoft actually providing openness and customization to make the web better? Interesting.

    I will admit I am slightly biased as I dislike VP8 and do not want it to be the only codec available. If h.264 and VP8 were equivalent I would favor open standards over proprietary ones, but VP8 is inferior to h.264 in terms of quality, compression, configurability, hardware acceleration, etc. Plus ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG should have the final draft of HEVC (successor to h.264/AVC) ready by January and it's supposed to be up to twice as efficient. I'd rather get MPEG/VCEG to release all their stuff as open standards with no patents/licensing fees (I can dream, can't I?)
  • 1 Hide
    kaisellgren , August 7, 2012 6:05 AM
    ZingamOnly if JavaScript and HTML5 weren't such an inconsistent mess...


    Maybe you will like Dart, then?
  • 0 Hide
    jhansonxi , August 7, 2012 6:14 AM
    gomez123You sound angry? Still regretting spending that $3,000 on a crApple laptop or is that Android phone of yours still stuck on Froyo. Oh, poor baby.

    Nice trolling attempt but I have a hand-built AMD system and an old Motorola feature phone. I was referring to the probable asset write-down on yet another Ballmer acquisition.
  • -2 Hide
    olaf , August 7, 2012 12:32 PM
    no keep skype away from me, in the rare ocasion i actualy need it ill start the app but don't integrate it ffs ... its one of the worse programs out there togather with MSN client and yahoo client ... lets not even mention it how shit it is for android.... keep my browser clean please ty wm, don't integrate flash/java or any other crap in it please....
  • 3 Hide
    osserc , August 7, 2012 1:52 PM
    Uh, the whole point is that you do away with the application so that you can connect directly through the browser, across devices and multiple browsers. At that point whatever "client" you use is just a collection of friend usernames since they'll all be communicating using the standard directly in the browser.

    Is it really that hard to understand?
  • 1 Hide
    AndrewMD , August 7, 2012 3:18 PM
    A Bad DaySkype: No, go away Microsoft

    It's nice to know that "A Bad Day" worked for Skype at one time and DID NOT benefit from Microsoft purchasing it.

    I don't feel sorry for you. All the other employees that work for Skype however most likely do not share your point of view and if they did, they also no longer work there.

  • -1 Hide
    jabliese , August 7, 2012 7:04 PM
    Translator set to Microsoft Historical:

    Customizable: Works with IE, and only IE
    Ubiquitous: Windows only
    Real Time: File copy finishes in 30 minutes, no wait, 5 minutes, umm, would you believe 10 minutes?
    Communication: It is what we say it is, not what you think it is, and certainly not what you want it to be
    over the Web: "Why don't you stop by?" said the Spider to the Fly.
  • -1 Hide
    WyomingKnott , August 7, 2012 8:19 PM
    They will immediately claim a patent on all Web RTC.
  • -1 Hide
    annymmo , August 7, 2012 10:57 PM
    Quote:
    Kaufman also pointed out that Google and Mozilla want to lock down their specifications to the VP8 video codec open sourced by Google back in 2010. Microsoft doesn't want to take that route, stating that "a successful standard cannot be tied to individual codecs, data formats or scenarios." Instead, CU-RTC-Web will support a number of "popular media formats and codecs as well as openness to future innovation."


    Comes from a browser maker that refuses to implement ogg vorbis and theora as well as webm vorbis and vp8 in it's browser for the audio and video element. While only providing h.264 as video format. Ogg vorbis and theora might not be technical superior but it's free and a good baseline for digital video formats.
  • 0 Hide
    alextheblue , August 8, 2012 3:50 AM
    ravewulfMicrosoft actually providing openness and customization to make the web better? Interesting.I will admit I am slightly biased as I dislike VP8 and do not want it to be the only codec available. If h.264 and VP8 were equivalent I would favor open standards over proprietary ones, but VP8 is inferior to h.264 in terms of quality, compression, configurability, hardware acceleration, etc. Plus ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG should have the final draft of HEVC (successor to h.264/AVC) ready by January and it's supposed to be up to twice as efficient. I'd rather get MPEG/VCEG to release all their stuff as open standards with no patents/licensing fees (I can dream, can't I?)

    Agreed. Why lock WebRTC to VP8? VP8 is inferior today, I'd hate to see how far behind it is in a few years.