SHARE



ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Dave Michels
Dave Michels is a Principal Analyst at TalkingPointz. His unique perspective on unified communications comes from a career involving telecommunications...
Read Full Bio >>
SHARE



Dave Michels | September 09, 2014 |

 
   

What's a WebRTC Application?

What's a WebRTC Application? While we clearly know and recognize WebRTC technology and its intent, recognizing or defining WebRTC applications is fairly complex.

While we clearly know and recognize WebRTC technology and its intent, recognizing or defining WebRTC applications is fairly complex.

I recently got into some interesting conversations about WebRTC. While we clearly know and recognize WebRTC technology and its intent, recognizing or defining WebRTC applications is fairly complex. Not even the exasperated "I know when I see it" approach worked well.

Let's start with the obvious - just check the standard. Well, there is no standard. The IETF and W3C groups that are working to approve the WebRTC standard have not yet agreed on it. Fierce debate about the technological components still continues.

Despite this lack of formal ratification, there are plenty of WebRTC solutions already available. This is in part because Google proceeded with its notion of WebRTC. Google released its libraries of codecs and transports that ship alongside their flavor of WebRTC support within the Chrome browser. A pre-WebRTC ecosystem is emerging with multiple conferences, vendors, and applications.

These applications are modeled after a proposed WebRTC standard. Now without looking, you might be able to guess some of the components in the draft - such as Opus, VP8, NAT traversal libraries, and so on. Oops, they aren't actually there. Proposed standards, or drafts, are actually more of description - they don't generally include things like specific technologies or sample code.

Specific technical components get covered in the Working Group meetings. Opus was selected for WebRTC audio. The most popular codec associated with WebRTC is the video codec VP8, but its inclusion in WebRTC is greatly exaggerated - it's one of the biggest areas of the standards debate. VP8 was included in Google's WebRTC free library. So, use of VP8 is clearly not WebRTC compliant. Even Google seems to have hedged its bet by recently accommodating Cisco's open H.264 in its WebRTC Library.

Another common test for WebRTC compliance is Chrome compatibility. Google Chrome was the first browser to support WebRTC, and most of the new applications rely on Chrome in order to be plugin-free. Other browsers that support WebRTC include Mozilla Firefox and Opera. These browsers use much of the same code, yet compatibility issues exist because Chrome has considerably more capability than what's specified in the WebRTC specification.

For example, the draft doesn't include "on the wire" signaling, but Chrome makes signaling capabilities available, likely to simplify development efforts. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this - the use of Google's options is not necessarily in conflict with the proposed standard. The problem is these capabilities do not exist in other browsers, further defeating browser-independence.

Google changed its own Hangouts service to be more in line with its view of WebRTC - it switched to the VP8 video codec and no longer requires a plugin in Chrome. However, Hangouts is not WebRTC compliant. It utilizes several non-compliant components, including SDES security descriptions and an older variant of ICE parameters. Evidently, Google determined the need for these technologies outweighed the benefits of WebRTC compliance.

Another point of confusion is whether or not WebRTC applications must run in a browser. Many people, and I was one of them, believed that WebRTC is a browser-based technology to enable real-time communications. In fact, the title of the specification is indeed, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers."

However, just a few lines below this title, in the abstract, it clarifies "to allow media to be sent to and received from another browser or device implementing the appropriate set of real-time protocols." Browser or device? WebRTC is a peer-to-peer technology that can run between browsers or other devices such as servers and even client applications.

Do WebRTC applications only run in browsers?
This question spawns some interesting debate. The majority of experts I've spoken to agree that WebRTC applications do not require a browser at all. While the browser was clearly a big part of the initial thrust of WebRTC, the promise of ubiquitous browser support seems distant at best. In addition to both Apple and Microsoft not incorporating WebRTC 1.0 into their browsers, there's the larger issue of delivering WebRTC to mobile devices that favor locally-installed applications.

Google recently released WebRTC libraries for iOS which has since enabled applications such as Gruveo to migrate from Flash to WebRTC. WebRTC Aficionado Tsahi Levent-Levi recently wrote: "Going mobile with WebRTC? You either need to accept the low reachability you will have, or port it and build an app for it. Both options are valid, and it really just depends on your use case." As a result, many developers are now turning to local clients to incorporate WebRTC elements into their applications - and completely skipping the browser.

So the draft specification isn't a good test for most of us. The browser-based strategy remains limited and incompatibilities are increasing. Even worse, WebRTC seems to be moving into the comfortable digs of OS-centric applications, potentially creating even more silos in the market.

WebRTC is clearly instigating innovation like no other technology in communications. The media engine, open source code, and access to a huge base of end users via select browsers create a fertile environment for new solutions. WebRTC applications will come in all sizes and shapes - some will tap into just specific components (such as the video codec) and some will leverage the full stack of optional capabilities within Chrome - most will likely sit somewhere in the middle with their own secret sauce such as signaling.

WebRTC was clearly over hyped as a cure-all, but now a more pragmatic approach is emerging. The fellows at Hookflash are intent on improving things by adding their own signaling (Open Peer) to the WebRTC conversation in an effort to bring Microsoft and Google together. But even if Microsoft and Google aligned, that still leaves the question of Apple.

The effort accompanies Hookflash's embrace of the Object RTC (ORTC) initiative, in which both Google and Microsoft are joining. "We won't be solving all WebRTC challenges with ORTC, but some of those issues seem more political in nature," says Erik Lagerway, Co-founder of Hookflash. "ORTC will make WebRTC more accessible for web developers, maybe as an evolution to WebRTC 1.0 and not as an alternative."

WebRTC is a set of real-time technologies that can be applied in a certain way, or not. The new types of applications include browser-based solutions and client-based applications with some or all, or more than all, components. WebRTC can be open or proprietary.

Ultimately, applications get consumed for their benefits, not their technology. It may not matter if it's a WebRTC application or not. "WebRTC really isn't just about technology," says Tsahi Levent-Levi. "It's always been more about the impact of free and open communications. WebRTC reduces friction and drives collaborative innovation. If the application delivers that, and couldn't have otherwise, then it's a WebRTC application."

Dave Michels is a Contributing Editor and Analyst at TalkingPointz.

Follow Dave Michels on Twitter and Google+!
@DaveMichels
Dave Michels on Google+





COMMENTS



July 12, 2017

Enterprises have been migrating Unified Communications & Collaboration applications to datacenters - private clouds - for the past few years. With this move comes the opportunity to leverage da

May 31, 2017

In the days of old, people in suits used to meet at a boardroom table to update each other on their work. Including a remote colleague meant setting a conference phone on the table for in-person pa

April 19, 2017

Now more than ever, enterprise contact centers have a unique opportunity to lead the way towards complete, digital transformation. Moving your contact center to the cloud is a starting point, quick

July 14, 2017
Lantre Barr, founder and CEO of Blacc Spot Media, urges any enterprise that's been on the fence about integrating real-time communications into business workflows to jump off and get started. Tune and....
June 28, 2017
Communications expert Tsahi Levent-Levi, author of the popular BlogGeek.me blog, keeps a running tally and comprehensive overview of communications platform-as-a-service offerings in his "Choosing a W....
June 9, 2017
If you think telecom expense management applies to nothing more than business phone lines, think again. Hyoun Park, founder and principal investigator with technology advisory Amalgam Insights, tells ....
June 2, 2017
Enterprises strategizing on mobility today, including for internal collaboration, don't have the luxury of learning as they go. Tony Rizzo, enterprise mobility specialist with Blue Hill Research, expl....
May 24, 2017
Mark Winther, head of IDC's global telecom consulting practice, gives us his take on how CPaaS providers evolve beyond the basic building blocks and address maturing enterprise needs.
May 18, 2017
Diane Myers, senior research director at IHS Markit, walks us through her 2017 UC-as-a-service report... and shares what might be to come in 2018.
April 28, 2017
Change isn't easy, but it is necessary. Tune in for advice and perspective from Zeus Kerravala, co-author of a "Digital Transformation for Dummies" special edition.
April 20, 2017
Robin Gareiss, president of Nemertes Research, shares insight gleaned from the firm's 12th annual UCC Total Cost of Operations study.
March 23, 2017
Tim Banting, of Current Analysis, gives us a peek into what the next three years will bring in advance of his Enterprise Connect session exploring the question: Will there be a new model for enterpris....
March 15, 2017
Andrew Prokop, communications evangelist with Arrow Systems Integration, discusses the evolving role of the all-important session border controller.
March 9, 2017
Organizer Alan Quayle gives us the lowdown on programmable communications and all you need to know about participating in this pre-Enterprise Connect hackathon.
March 3, 2017
From protecting against new vulnerabilities to keeping security assessments up to date, security consultant Mark Collier shares tips on how best to protect your UC systems.
February 24, 2017
UC analyst Blair Pleasant sorts through the myriad cloud architectural models underlying UCaaS and CCaaS offerings, and explains why knowing the differences matter.
February 17, 2017
From the most basics of basics to the hidden gotchas, UC consultant Melissa Swartz helps demystify the complex world of SIP trunking.
February 7, 2017
UC&C consultant Kevin Kieller, a partner at enableUC, shares pointers for making the right architectural choices for your Skype for Business deployment.
February 1, 2017
Elka Popova, a Frost & Sullivan program director, shares a status report on the UCaaS market today and offers her perspective on what large enterprises need before committing to UC in the cloud.
January 26, 2017
Andrew Davis, co-founder of Wainhouse Research and chair of the Video track at Enterprise Connect 2017, sorts through the myriad cloud video service options and shares how to tell if your choice is en....
January 23, 2017
Sheila McGee-Smith, Contact Center/Customer Experience track chair for Enterprise Connect 2017, tells us what we need to know about the role cloud software is playing in contact centers today.