Microsoft and Google differ on WebRTC API

In June, Microsoft posted up a job listing for its Skype division that hinted strongly that the company could be using the WebRTC API to help build a web version of the popular Internet phone and video service. Now it looks like Microsoft has proposed its own version of WebRTC that differs from another version that has the backing of Google and others.

GigaOM reports that Microsoft has now submitted its proposal for what it calls "Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web,” or CU-RTC-Web, to the official W3C WebRTC working group. WebRTC is supposed to offer users a plug-in free experience for web-based voice and video chat services. Google has put in their own version of the WebRTC APIs in its Chrome browser, as have Mozilla and Opera.

However, Microsoft doesn't want to put in WebRTC for Internet Explorer just yet. It would like to see WebRTC supported on older devices. Matthew Kaufman, the head of Microsoft's WebRTC efforts, said, "The history of voice over IP is filled with incompatibility." He is still hopeful that all of the interested parties can come together to create a WebRTC standard that everyone can use.

In the meantime, it's possible that a web-based version of Skype could be launched by Microsoft using its new CU-RTC-Web API while the company works with Google, Mozilla and others to formalize the standard.

Source: GigaOM

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Best Buy founder makes offer to take the company private

Next Story

HTC rumored to launch five inch phone in Sept/Oct

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Lets see Microsoft owns Skype, live network, video Kinect and Lync. Google owns Google Voice or whatever that is. Who should drive it? This is a toughy! lets ask the experts.

Julius Caro said,
They submitted changes, I believe all the other parties involved can do the same. Where's the big clash?

It's Microsoft. People will always make a big clash because of their name.

Why are you blaming MS? They are proposing a better model (which can be customized on top of the core WebRTC api) and it's up to the W3C to accept/refuse that model.
They don't have the right to propose something new anymore now?

Anthonyd said,
Why are you blaming MS? They are proposing a better model (which can be customized on top of the core WebRTC api) and it's up to the W3C to accept/refuse that model.
They don't have the right to propose something new anymore now?

Another company says they will open their video protocol to a standards body, and they are cheered. They go back on their word, and people defend them, saying it is their right to do so, we don't need it to be an open standard - all while claiming that said company embraces standards like no other company (even though they routinely ignore standards and interop for their own protocols).

Microsoft submits extensions to a standards body so that all can use those extensions, they are trying to destroy the Internet, extinguish their competition, and so on.

nohone said,

Microsoft submits extensions to a standards body so that all can use those extensions, they are trying to destroy the Internet, extinguish their competition, and so on.

LOL thanks for the laugh

Microsoft seem to play again the EEE strategy that worked so well for IE: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Next, you'll can use Skype via web only with ........ drumroll ............ IE.

Surprised? No.

Jesus Webrtc isn't even a standard or a draft standard yet. It's incomplete and thus MS, Mozilla, Google, Apple can keep submitting changes for the W3C to validate and put into the specification.

Yeah...embrace, extend, extinguish by submitting a change to a proposed spec to the W3C. Wait, isn't that what Google did with the original spec? They submitted it to the W3C, which is all Microsoft has done here.

The difference is Google submitted the spec and implemented it in a production browser before it became a standard, while Microsoft is waiting for the W3C to move forward on it before they implement it...

theyarecomingforyou said,
Microsoft holding back web standards? Quelle surprise!

It's not even a draft yet, it's still very much incomplete and each vendor has a different implementation of it. So MS (and others) can still submit changes that will eventually make it into the specification.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Microsoft holding back web standards? Quelle surprise!

Holding back? Guess you missed the part where he said he wants to everyone to come up with a standard where everybody can use it, as there's a lot of compatibility issues. Sounds kind of the opposite of "holding back"...

theyarecomingforyou said,
Microsoft holding back web standards? Quelle surprise!

You really are incapable of making correct interpretations if that's what you got from reading the article.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Microsoft holding back web standards? Quelle surprise!

Yeah, and Google's proprietary technology in Chrome is really helping things out, right?

FalseAgent said,

Yeah, and Google's proprietary technology in Chrome is really helping things out, right?

WebRTC is a free, open project which Google implemented. I don't know how that is considered proprietary.

still1 said,

WebRTC is a free, open project which Google implemented. I don't know how that is considered proprietary.

Its proprietory because its not a w3c standard, its just random thing some company cobbled together.

Deviate_X said,

Its proprietory because its not a w3c standard, its just random thing some company cobbled together.


You have No clue what you are talking WebRTC is a HTML 5 standard drafted by w3c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC
So, No its not proprietary. No open source project is proprietary. open source and proprietary are opposite in meaning.

man you lost the creditably right there.. if you dont know about something its better to stay quite.

still1 said,

No open source project is proprietary.

Proprietary refers to OWNERSHIP. Open Source refers to AVAILABILITY. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Nas said,

Proprietary refers to OWNERSHIP. Open Source refers to AVAILABILITY. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Proprietary is a closed source model which is opposite to open source.
if that's the case can you show me a software which is open source and Proprietary.

still1 said,

Proprietary is a closed source model which is opposite to open source.
if that's the case can you show me a software which is open source and Proprietary.

Concept and implementation are not the same thing. Ownership and availability are two different concepts, and there is nothing to stop a company from making an open-source proprietary software. But in reality the companies do not want to release the source code for their proprietary software.

And from Wikipedia:
"The text-based email client Pine and certain implementations of Secure Shell are distributed with proprietary licenses that make the source code available."

still1 said,

You have No clue what you are talking WebRTC is a HTML 5 standard drafted by w3c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC
...
man you lost the creditably right there.. if you dont know about something its better to stay quite.

Think you should take your own advice. The standard is BEING DRAFTED! i.e. there is no standard at the moment, they are working towards CREATING a standard. There is what Google would like to BECOME the standard and there is what Microsoft would like to BECOME the standard. In all likelihood the standard will probably take ideas from both. Neither Google nor Microsoft are any more or less following the standard as it doesn't exist.

I suggest that you take your own advice and keep "quite"[sic] as you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.

mog0 said,

Think you should take your own advice. The standard is BEING DRAFTED! i.e. there is no standard at the moment, they are working towards CREATING a standard. There is what Google would like to BECOME the standard and there is what Microsoft would like to BECOME the standard. In all likelihood the standard will probably take ideas from both. Neither Google nor Microsoft are any more or less following the standard as it doesn't exist.

I suggest that you take your own advice and keep "quite"[sic] as you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.


drafted mean "Prepare a preliminary version". so a preliminary version of the standard is created. Its not final yet but most companies implement as the new specs are finalised in parallel. read the article again "Microsoft has proposed its own version of WebRTC that differs from another version that has the backing of Google and others." so microsoft is trying to implement its own version while the rest of them are implementing it in one way.

And again my reply was in response to a person who said WebRTC is not a standard at all which is not true... I think its better you keep quite when you dont understand the article.

so microsoft is trying to implement its own version while the rest of them are implementing it in one way.

Um no. Microsoft is suggesting a change to the W3C, if it wins and becomes standard then the other manufacturers will follow soon.

Right now its just a giant mess with EVERY browser maker having a slightly different implementation. All MS is doing is suggesting a change, you should take your own advice and read the article.

Also being drafted =/= drafted. Stop reading the trash news that comes up on Neowin from John Callaham

-Razorfold said,

Um no. Microsoft is suggesting a change to the W3C, if it wins and becomes standard then the other manufacturers will follow soon.

Right now its just a giant mess with EVERY browser maker having a slightly different implementation. All MS is doing is suggesting a change, you should take your own advice and read the article.

Also being drafted =/= drafted. Stop reading the trash news that comes up on Neowin from John Callaham


I love how people deviate from my actual point and start assuming things...
I am not against MS suggesting proposals and that's how most standards work..
my response was to a person who said WebRTC is proprietary and wont be a standard approved by w3c.
you better read the comments

i suspect microsoft wants to be able to spy on users using skype's servers or something. MS already refused to say whether they now spy on skype users.

Sigh.

Microsoft DOESN'T spy on its users. Instead the US government wanted MS to put in a wiretap feature that allows law enforcement (with the appropriate warrants) to listen into conversations.

Microsoft doesn't really have a say in this. They're a US company doing business in the US, and so are subject to the laws of said country.

torrentthief said,
i suspect microsoft wants to be able to spy on users using skype's servers or something. MS already refused to say whether they now spy on skype users.

LOFL (you were joking, right?) xD

torrentthief said,
i suspect microsoft wants to be able to spy on users using skype's servers or something. MS already refused to say whether they now spy on skype users.

Let me guess... You use google?