WebRTC IP addresses and port ranges can be a bit tricky for those unfamiliar enough with VoIP. I’d like to shed some light about this topic.
A recent back and forth discussion that I had with one of the people taking my online WebRTC course made it clear to me that there are still things I take for granted because I come with a VoIP heritage to what it is I am doing today. Which is why this article here.
Connecting a WebRTC session takes multiple network connections and messages taking place over different types of transport protocols. There are two reasons why that decision was made for WebRTC:
Lets see how connections get made over the internet and how WebRTC makes use of that.A quick explainer to internet connections
We will start by looking at the building blocks of digital communications – TCP and UDP.
The table below summarizes a bit the differences between the two:TCP and UDP are two extremes of how transport protocols can be expressed TCP connections
TCP is a reliable transport protocol. As such, it has a built-in retransmission mechanisms that is meant to make sure whatever is sent is received on the other end and in the same order of sending.
To do that properly, a TCP connection needs to be created. A TCP connection is a set of 4 values:
Source IP:Source port + Destination IP:Destination Port
How does one establish a TCP connection?
On your local machine you “bind” one of the local IP addresses of the machine to a local port number. That IP and port needs to be available and not taken for something else already. Then you need to try and connect to the destination IP:port.
Let’s say I want to connect to google.com.
For me, google.com resolves to the IP address 184.108.40.206. Assuming I want to connect to port 80 (a “randomly” picked port), I’d do the following: Bind a local IP:port (arbitrary local port), and connect it to 220.127.116.11:80.
Knowing the IP:port on source and destination of the connection means knowing the connection – there cannot be two such connections. Once you bind a local port to connect it to a remote address over TCP, that port cannot be reused until the connection is closed and done with.
If I want to open another TCP connection from my machine to the same address, I will need to bind yet another port on my local address and connect it to the destination IP:port,
Obviously, there are some caveats and edge cases I am ignoring here, but for our needs, the above is enough of an explanation.UDP “connections”
Since UDP is connectionless, there’s no real connection with UDP. No context whatsoever.
To send a message over UDP, I need again the quad of values:
Source IP:Source port + Destination IP:Destination Port
But this time, there’s no real connection. What happens here is that I open a local IP:port, and whenever I want to send out a message, I just tell it the destination IP:port and be done with it.WebRTC signaling connections and addresses
WebRTC signaling is just like any other web application connection.
In order to send and receive the SDP blobs to make the connection, I need to be able to communicate between the browsers and that is done using traditional networking means available in the browser: either HTTP or WebSocket. Both (ignoring HTTP/3) are implemented on top of TCP.
What does that mean?
The end result?The signaling server has a static IP and port, while the client is “dynamic” in nature
Local ports are arbitrary (and ephemeral). Destination port is 443 (or whatever advertised by the server).WebRTC media connections and addresses
Media in WebRTC gets connected via SRTP. Most of the time, that would happen over UDP, which is what we will focus on in this section.
In naive SRTP implementations from before the WebRTC era, each video call usually used 4 separate connections:
What happens though is this –
Since these addresses and ports are local, there’s high probability that they will be blocked by firewalls for incoming traffic.
Media servers work in the exact same way. In most cases, the addresses that they will use will be public IP addresses, but the ports will be arbitrary. That’s because media servers usually prefer handling each incoming device separately, by receiving its traffic on a dedicated socket connected to a specific port.STUN “connections” and addresses
Since we’re all behind NATs with our private IP addresses, we need to know our public IP address so we can connect to others directly (peer-to-peer).
To do that, STUN is used. WebRTC will take the media local IP:port it created (in that section above), and use it to “connect” over UDP to a STUN server.
This is in concept somewhat similar to how our signaling works – the local IP address has an arbitrary port, while the remote IP:port is known – and configured in advance in our peer connection iceServers. My advice? Have that port be 443.
Why do we do all that with STUN? So that we create a pinhole through the NAT which will allocate for us a public IP address (and port). The STUN server will respond back with the IP address and port it saw, and we will publish that so that the other side will attempt reaching out to us on that public IP:port pair. If the NAT allows such binding, then we will have our session established.The STUN server has a static IP and port, while the client (and NAT) operate with “dynamic” IP addresses and ports
The above shows how Google’s STUN server works from my machine in AppRTC:
With TURN, the server is relaying our media towards the other user. For that to happen, my browser needed to:
The above shows how Google’s TURN server works from my machine in AppRTC:
UDP, TCP and TLS work similarly in TURN when it comes to address and port allocation. What is important to notice here is how the TURN server opens up and allocates ports on the its public IP address whenever someone tries to connect through it.Understanding port ranges in WebRTC configurations
WebRTC makes use of a range of addresses, ports and transport protocols. Far more than anything else that we run in our browsers. As such, it can be quite complex to grasp. There is order and logic in this chaos – this isn’t something inflicted on you because someone wanted to be mean.
In WebRTC the addresses and ports that get allocated by the end devices (=browsers), media servers and TURN servers are dynamic. This means that in many cases we have to deal with port ranges.
Go to any voice or video conferencing service running over the Internet. Search for their address and port configuration. They all have that information in their knowledgebase. A list of addresses and ports you need to open in your firewalls, written nicely on a page so that the IT guy will be able to copy it to his firewall rules.
Should these ranges be large? As in 49,152 to 65,535? Should this range be squeezed down maybe?
I’ve seen vendors creating a port range of 10 or 100 ports. That’s usually too little to run in scale when the time comes. I’d go with a range of 10,000 ports or more. I’d probably also try first to estimate the capacity of the machine in question and figure out if more ports might be needed to maintain the sessions per second I am planning on supporting (allocated TCP ports take some time to clear up).
Is this “wholesale” port range a real security threat or just an imaginary one? How do you go about explaining the need to customers who like their networks all clamped down and closed?
If you are looking to learn more about WebRTC, check out my WebRTC training courses. In the near future, I will start working on a new course about TURN installation and configuration – if you are interested in early access – do let me know.
The post WebRTC ports: Understanding IP addresses and port ranges in WebRTC appeared first on BlogGeek.me.
WebRTC TURN servers are an essential piece of almost any WebRTC deployment. If you aren’t using them, then make sure you have a VERY good reason.
Connecting a WebRTC session is an orchestrated effort done with the assistance of multiple WebRTC servers. The NAT traversal servers in WebRTC are in charge of making sure the media gets properly connected. These servers are STUN and TURN.3 ways to connect WebRTC sessions
When connecting a session between two browsers (peer-to-peer) in WebRTC, there are 3 different alternatives that might happen.Connect directly, across the local network Connecting WebRTC over a local network
If both devices are on the local network, then there’s no special effort needed to be done to get them connected to each other. If one device has the local IP address of the other device, then they can communicate with each other directly.
Most of the time and for most use cases, this is NOT going to be the case.Connect directly, over the internet, with public IP addresses Connecting WebRTC directly using public IP address obtained via STUN
When the devices aren’t inside the same local network, then the way to reach each other can only be done through public IP addresses. Since our devices don’t know their public IP addresses, they need to ask for it first.
This is where STUN comes in. It enables the devices to ask a STUN server “what is my public IP address?”
Assuming all is well, and there are no other blocking factors, then the public IP address is enough to get the devices to connect to each other. Common lore indicates that around 80% of all connections can be resolved by either using the local IP address or by use of STUN and public IP addresses.Route the media through a WebRTC TURN server Connecting WebRTC by using TURN to relay the media
Knowing the public IP address is great, but it might not be enough.
There are multiple reasons for this, one of them being that the NAT and firewall devices in use are not allowing such direct traffic to take place. In such cases, we route the data through an intermediary public server called TURN.
Since we are routing the data, it is an expensive endeavor compared to the other approaches – it has bandwidth costs associated with it and it is why you Google won’t ever offer a free TURN server.Transport protocols and WebRTC TURN servers
TURN comes in 3 different flavors in WebRTC (6 if you want to be more accurate).How testRTC checks and explains connectivity alternatives of TURN servers in qualityRTC
You can relay your WebRTC data over TURN by going either over IPv4 or IPv6, where IPv4 is the more popular choice.
Then there’s the choice of connecting over UDP, TCP or TLS.
UDP would work best here because WebRTC knows best when and how to manage network congestion and if to use retransmissions. Since it doesn’t always work, it might require the use of TCP or even TLS.
Which type of a connection would you end up with? You won’t really know until the connection gets established, so you’ll need to have all your options opened.When is a TURN server needed in WebRTC?
That’s easy. Whenever there can’t be a direct connection between the two devices.
For peer to peer, you will need to install and run a TURN server.Try direct, then TURN/UDP, then TURN/TCP and finally TURN/TLS
The illustration above shows our “priorities” in how we’d like a session to connect in a peer to peer scenario.
If you are connecting your devices to a media server (be it an SFU for group calling or any other type of a server), you’ll still need a TURN server.
Why? Because some firewalls block certain types of traffic. Many just block UDP. Some may even block TCP.
With a typical WebRTC media server, my suggestion is to configure TURN/TCP and TURN/TLS transports and remove the TURN/UDP option – since you have direct access to the public IP address of the media server, there’s no point in using TURN/UDP.Try direct to server, then TURN/TCP and finally TURN/TLS
The illustration above shows our “priorities” in how we’d like a session to connect with a media server.What about ICE-TCP?
There’s a mechanism called ICE-TCP that can be used in WebRTC. In essence, it enables a media server to provide in the SDP a ICE candidate using a TCP transport. This means the media server will actively wait on a TCP port for an incoming connection from the device.
It used to be a Chrome feature, but now it is available in all web browsers that support WebRTC.
This makes the use of TURN/TCP unnecessary, but will still leave us with the need of TURN/TLS.Try direct UDP to server, then direct ICE-TCP to server and finally TURN/TLS
The illustration above shows our “priorities” in how we’d like a session to connect with ICE-TCP turned on.The elusive (mis)configuration of TURN servers in WebRTC
Configuring TURN servers in WebRTC isn’t an easy task. The reason isn’t that this is rocket science. It is more due to the fact that checking a configuration to ensure it works properly isn’t that simple.
We are used to testing things locally. Right?
Here’s the challenge – in WebRTC, trying it on your machine, or with your machine and the one next to it – will ALWAYS WORK. Why? Because they connect directly, across the local network. This means TURN isn’t even necessary or used in such a case. So you never test that path in your code/configuration.
What can you do about it?
The above things can be done locally and repeatedly, so start there. Once you get this to work, move towards the internet to check it there.Quick facts Do you need a TURN server if you connect your sessions to a WebRTC media server?
Yes. WebRTC media servers don’t support TLS type of transport. Sometimes they do support TCP via ICE-TCP. For the cases where calls can’t connect in other ways, you will need to use TURN/TCP or TURN/TLS.Do media servers need to have WebRTC TURN server configuration?
Usually not. In most cases you will be installing media servers with direct internet access on a public IP address. This means that having TURN configured only on the WebRTC client side is enough.How do you test a TURN server configuration for your application?
An easy way is to block UDP traffic and see if your WebRTC client can still connect. Another one is to use Google’s Trickle ICE sample.
The post WebRTC TURN: Why you NEED it and when you DON’T need it appeared first on BlogGeek.me.
Once a month, I will be publishing along with Philipp Hancke a WebRTC fiddle of the month as a free lesson in my WebRTC Codelab. This continues an old tradition of Mozilla’s Jan-Ivar, the fiddle ot the week.
Time for a new experiment. If all goes well, we will be making it a monthly thing.
Somehow, a week or two ago, we came to the conclusion that it would be nice to do a short video explainer of something that people are trying to figure out with WebRTC.
To make this happen, we decide together what to do the short lesson about, then Philipp Hancke writes a jsFiddle piece of code to implement it. And then we sit and record the explanation of it, creating a new free lesson in our joint WebRTC Codelab course.What does each WebRTC fiddle of the month include?
Each WebRTC fiddle of the month has these 3 resources:
Creating the WebRTC Codelab was fun. We’re thinking of recording a new course at some point, but until we wrap our heads around that one, we’ve decided to continue recording some more lessons.
Seems like we work good together, so finding yet another excuse to do something made enough sense.
Oh, and if you happen to decide that you need to learn more about WebRTC, and end up enrolling to our course, then that’s a definite winTwo requests I have for you #1 – Check our first “fiddle of the month”
Our first explainer fiddle is about creating a peer connection that includes screen sharing and an audio microphone stream wrapped nicely together. You might get zoom-fatigue (or the WebRTC equivalent of that term), but you almost always want to talk when trying to screen share and collaborate.
Go watch our fiddle – Sharing screen + microphone together
Future WebRTC fiddles won’t be announced here, but only on social media and in the WebRTC Weekly (so subscribe to it). These fiddles will all be available in the WebRTC fiddle of the month section of the WebRTC Codelab course.#2 – Suggest some more ideas for such fiddles
Got ideas or requests for fiddles?
I can’t promise we will record your request, but I can promise you we will seriously think about it once we sit down to decide what to record.
I wanted to add local recording to my own Jitsi Meet instance. The feature wasn’t built in the way I wanted, so I set out on a hack to build something simple. That lead me down the road to discovering that: getDisplayMedia for screen capture has many quirks, mediaRecorder for media recording has some of its […]
The post Using getDisplayMedia for local recording with audio on Jitsi appeared first on webrtcHacks.
2020 offers an interesting viewpoint to WebRTC browser support. Where exactly is it available in desktop and mobile, and what can you do about it as a developer?
This is almost a yearly article that I now write, each time with a slightly different focus to it. We’re now halfway into 2020, and things are changing fast.
Here’s a quote that I am seeing a lot this year:
Sometimes this quote is quite literally true. pic.twitter.com/SkVooF9Fez— The Long Now Foundation (@longnow) January 1, 2020
It rings true for the last few weeks when it comes to WebRTC, but somehow, in the domain of WebRTC browser support, we’re still standing in place.
My most up to date slide on WebRTC browser support?
We will get back to it in detail a bit later.
For now I’d like to look at the “Can I use” website, filtered for WebRTC. It gives a good starting point (although somewhat misleading). I will use that as the basis of looking at WebRTC on desktop and mobile.WebRTC support on desktop
On the desktop today, all modern web browsers support WebRTC.
This has been the case for quite some time now. I’ve announced that this means that WebRTC is ready towards the end of 2018.
Because the consumption model in the desktop today is done through web applications, while on mobile, it is predominantly based on native applications. So the moment all desktop browsers are nicely represented and supported, things look bright.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t challenges with WebRTC browser support – obviously there are.
I can list a few of them here out of the top of my head:
When it comes to mobile, support for WebRTC is a bit more complicated.WebRTC iOS Safari support Is WebRTC really available on iOS Safari?
iOS Safari has been supporting WebRTC since Safari 11.
We’re now in Safari 13.5 and things are still rather grim when it comes to true support of WebRTC.
iOS Safari WebRTC is such a broken mess that my going suggestion to clients unfortunately is to not support it and redirect users to a native app installation. I had to manually go through all open WebRTC bugs in webkit to figure out how to explain this to my clients and help them in reaching that conclusion and even conveying that to their customers.
There are nasty bugs in iOS Safari that have been opened since 2019 or earlier relating to media handling of WebRTC. These aren’t just edge cases, but rather things you’ll have users bump into in regular use. Some of them have finally been fixed in the latest 13.5.5 beta earlier this month.
Oh – and if you plan on using any OTHER browser on iOS then WebRTC won’t be supported there. Why? Because Apple hasn’t made WebRTC available in its Webkit Webview on iOS and they aren’t allowing anyone to build a mobile iOS browser that doesn’t use Webkit as its rendering engine. So much for freedom and choice.
Up until now, there was no serious way to run a WebRTC web application in iOS Safari in production at scale. Hopefully, this is now mostly solved…Android browsers support for WebRTC How well is WebRTC supported in the fragmented Android world?
Android has its own set of headaches when it comes to WebRTC. That’s because there’s no single Android out there, but rather a slew of them.
Here’s what we can glean from a close look at that “can I use” list above.
While WebRTC is nicely supported in Android, it is going to be hard sometimes to decide what that support exactly means. Knowing that is a mix of understanding the device and the browser the web application is being executed on top.Where do we go from here?
If you read everything until here, then understand this: WebRTC is a work in progress.
It is the best (and only) alternative you have for real time communications that works in the browser without any installation. It works well enough for large companies to release applications (web and native) that attract massive user bases.
As with many other technologies, starting to use it is simple. Getting it to a professional level requires a lot more investment and commitment.
Next week I’ll be starting off my “future of WebRTC” workshop. This workshop is going to cover many aspects of the changing landscape of WebRTC. I’ll be touching issues of infrastructure, optimization and differentiation. All with a view of the current best practices as well as the latest trends.
There are 2-3 more seats available in the workshop. If you are interested in joining, check here.
VP9 is the best unused codec today that can improve video quality and media experience in your WebRTC application. Lets see who is this codec good for.
Last year there were 3 video codecs available in browsers for WebRTC: VP8, H.264 and VP9. Now there seem to be 5, with the addition of HEVC and AV1. Let’s put some sense into what is really going on, and where does each of these fit, focusing on VP9.WebRTC video codec support by browser All modern web browsers today support WebRTC
In the good old days, WebRTC video codec support was “simple”. The industry was bickering and fighting between VP8 or H.264 until resolving the matter by mandating both VP8 and H.264 codec support in web browsers.
Then Google went ahead, adding VP9 into the mix. Mozilla went along with it and added it to Firefox.
After that, we’ve got to the point where the Alliance of Open Media was created with AV1 as its video codec, prepping us nicely into the next codec war we’re going to face – the upcoming AV1 codec versus HEVC – both of which are now available (or eminently available, or soon to be available) in web browsers with WebRTC.
I’ve created this simple table for you to understand in which web browser which video codec is available for WebRTC:
To make things simple, if you need to launch something in 2020, then the video codecs available to you are:
Which leads us to the next question…HEVC & AV1. Should you join the experiment? Be sure you want to be part of WebRTC’s future video codec(s) experiment(s)
Let’s check the new video codecs that are sprouting in WebRTC to understand where we stand with them.HEVC
It seems that Apple is adding HEVC to Safari. It is available to some extent in the Safari Technology Preview, so developers can tinker with it without knowing when it will be publicly available in Safari. And there is no indication or an inkling of an indication that other browser vendors are going to join – Google won’t. Mozilla definitely won’t. Microsoft just might, but that would mean forking away a bit from Chromium which is now the engine inside their Edge browser – not the right focus in my mind for Microsoft here.
HEVC is like VP9 in the same way that H.264 is like VP8:
The only difference is that HEVC doesn’t exist in any browser yet and will only be available on Safari while H.264 is available in all browsers.
To understand where we’re at with H.264 vs VP8 we only need to read the stats shared by Google in their recent semi-celebration for 10 years of WebM and WebRTC:
“These technologies have succeeded together, as today over 90% of encoded WebRTC video in Chrome uses VP8 or VP9.”
The bolded marking is my own doing – and just so we’re clear:
Now with AV1 coming up and the huge backing behind it, the HEVC track is all but dead. At least for the majority of WebRTC developers.
If you want to use HEVC in WebRTC, then you limit yourself to future Safari releases and native applications (where you modify the WebRTC codebase to add HEVC). Don’t expect it to work in any other web browserAV1
AV1 is the best next thing in video coding. The best invention since sliced bread. The best unlikely cooperation amongst industry co-opetitors moving away from royalty bearing video codecs towards an open video codec.
It is supposed to be better than both VP9 and HEVC from a compression standpoint.
And it is supposed to be a coombaya experience where everyone is supporting it. The members list of the Alliance of Open Media foundation behind it is impressive. It includes all browser vendors and many chipset vendors. How can you go wrong here?
The only problem for me is adoption time. It takes a long time to get a video codec to market.CodecYear startedAgeH.264200317VP8200812HEVC20137VP920137AV120191Video codec maturity
To get a video codec to market properly time is needed. From specification, to implementation, to modifying the implementation to work for real time communications, to optimizing the implementation to work reasonably on available CPUs.
In Chrome it doesn’t officially exist. It is there behind a flag, making sure users can’t really enjoy it and web developers don’t have meaningful enough access to it.
Getting a codec that came out of the oven a year or two ago to production is risky business.
If you need this article to learn about codecs, then AV1 should NOT be in your roadmap in 2020. You better wait this one out a little bitWho is using VP9 codec today?
Not Google it. Google.
They use VP9 in Google Meet. That’s a large traffic source using VP9, but it says a lot about the adoption of VP9 so far.
There are also a few instances where VP9 is used in streaming or live streaming use cases. Nothing major though.Adoption challenges of using VP9 codec Photo by Mathias Jensen on Unsplash
Why so low an adoption after being out on the market for 7 years?
I can only guess…
I’ve written about the role of VP9 in WebRTC before.
The premise of VP9 is improving encoding compression over VP8.Compression rate
That comes at a cost of expending more CPU, giving us the option to balance between using network and CPU resources.VP9 gives you either less bitrate for the same quality or more quality for the same bitrate than VP8
When looking at the higher end of the bitrate equation, one may prefer using VP8 or H.264 – we have enough network resources so we couldn’t really care on that front while saving on CPU might be beneficial
On the lower end of the bitrate equation, we’d want to squeeze every bit we have running on the network on higher quality. And then using VP9 might make more sense: since the bitrate is limited, we can spare more CPU on that and use VP9.
Sad thing is we can’t really know this in advance, at least not always.Scalability
Implementing a workable large scale video group call with WebRTC isn’t trivial. There are a lot of aspects to deal with both from a network perspective as well as from a CPU perspective.
The name of the game in this case is optimization, and this comes by having more flexibility in the tools you can use for optimizing the hell out of your video experience.
The flexibility here comes from VP9 SVC implementation in WebRTC:
If I had to chart the flexibility of a WebRTC video codec for large group sessions based on the tools it gives developers, this is what I’ll get:
We expend more CPU on VP9 but we win in network performance and scalability of a video group call by doing that.Plotting a route towards AV1
AV1 is the future.
Should you skip VP9 and just head to AV1 once it is ready? I don’t know.
The thing is, we had 2020. A pandemic that got us all cooped up at home doing video calls like crazy. The world has changed and with it priorities in our industry.
We’ve fast forwarded roadmaps by 5 years, so the future is already here. Can you wait a year or two more before you introduce a better video codec? If yes, then go straight to AV1. If you can’t, then you should seriously consider starting off with VP9 adoption.A quick recap Who is using VP9 codec in WebRTC applications?
Google Meet makes use of VP9 codec. Sadly, there is no other popular, large scale WebRTC application that makes use of it.Does VP9 codec support SVC in WebRTC?
Yes. In fact, VP9 is the only codec today that supports SVC (Scalable Video Coding) in WebRTC. This gives developers more flexibility in large group video calls and even live broadcasts than other video codecs.
The challenge is that VP9 SVC support in WebRTC isn’t official or well documented.
Better compression rate compared to VP8 and H.264 which are mandatory to implement in WebRTC.
Better scalability. It has flexible tools that assist in scaling video group calls.
HEVC and AV1 don’t yet exist in WebRTC browser implementations. At least not in a way you can utilize in a production service.
VP9 is available and usable in Chrome, Firefox and Edge.
If you are looking to improve video quality or reduce bitrates in your WebRTC application, then you should seriously look at VP9.
The post VP9 Codec: Is it time to adopt it in your WebRTC application? appeared first on BlogGeek.me.
My journey creating a scalable SBC as a Service for Microsoft Teams Direct Routing is over at Snapsonic.com.
Enabling large group video calls in WebRTC is possible, but requires effort. WebRTC CPU consumption requires optimizations and that means making use of a lot of different techniques.
Cramming more users in a single WebRTC call is something I’ve been addressing here for quite some time.
The pandemic around us gave rise to the use and adoption of video conferencing everywhere. Even if this does slow down eventually, we’ve fast forwarded a few years at the very least in how people are going to use this technology.It all started with a Gallery View
What’s interesting to see is how requirements and feature sets have changed throughout the years when it comes to video conferencing. When I first joined RADVISION, the leading screen layout of a video conference was something like this:
It had multiple names at the time, though today we refer to it mainly as gallery view (because, well… that’s how Zoom calls it).
Somehow, everyone was razor focused on this. Cramming as many people as possible into a single screen. Some of it is because we didn’t know better as an industry at the time. The rest is because video conferencing was a thing done between meeting rooms with large displays.
It also fit rather well with the centralized nature of the MCU, who ruled video conferencing.Enter Speaker View
At some point in time, we all shifted towards the speaker view (name again, courtesy of Zoom):
There were a few vendors who implemented this, but I think Google Hangouts made it popular. It was the only layout they had available (up until last month), and it was well suited for the SFU technology they used. It also made a lot of sense since Hangouts took place in laptops and desktops and not inside meeting rooms.
With an SFU, we reduce the CPU load of the server by offloading that work to the user devices. At the same time, we increase our demand from the devices.Hello 2020
Then 2020 happened.
With it came social distancing, quarantines and boredom. For companies this meant that there was a need for townhall meetings for an office, done on a regular interval, just to keep employees engaged. Larger meetings between room meetings because even larger still as everyone started joining them from home.
The context of many calls went from trying to get things done to get connected and providing the shared goals and values that are easier to achieve within the office space. This in turn, got us back to the gallery view.
Oh… and it also made 20+ user meetings a lot more common.3 reasons why WebRTC is a CPU hog
The starting point is challenging with WebRTC CPU use when it comes to video calling. WebRTC has 3 things going against it at the get go already:#1 – Video takes up a lot of pixels
1080p@30fps is challenging. And 720p isn’t a walk in the park either.
The amount of pixels to process to encode 1080p?
62 million pixels every second… I can’t count that fast
You need to encode and decode all that, and if you have multiple users in the same call, the number of pixels is going to grow – at least if you’re naive in your solution’s implementation.
What does this all boils down to? WebRTC CPU use will go over the roof, especially as more users are added into that group video call of yours.#2 – Hardware acceleration isn’t always available
Without hardware acceleration, WebRTC CPU use will be high. Hardware acceleration will alleviate the pain somewhat.
Deciding to use H.264?
Going with VP8?
What about VP9?
So all these pixels? Software needs to handle them in many (or all) cases.#3 – It is general purpose
WebRTC is general purpose. It is a set of APIs in HTML that browsers implement.
These browsers have no clue about your use case, so they are not optimizing for it. They optimize for the greater good of humanity (and for Google’s own use cases when it comes to Chrome).
Implementing a large scale video conference scenario can be done in a lot of different ways. The architecture you pick will greatly affect quality but also the approach you’ll need to take towards optimization. This selection isn’t something that a browser is aware of or even the infrastructure you decide to use if we go with a CPaaS vendor.
And it all boils down to this simple graph:Complexity vs group size in WebRTC conference calls
The bigger the meeting size, the more WebRTC CPU becomes a challenge and the harder you need to work to optimize your implementation for it.Why now?
I’ve been helping out a client last month. He said something interesting –
“We probably had this issue and users complained. Now we have 100x the users, so we hear their complaints a lot more”
We are using video more than ever. It isn’t a “nice to have” kind of a thing – it is the main dish. And as such, we are finding out that WebRTC CPU (which people always complained about) is becoming a real issue. Especially in larger meetings.
Even Google are investing more effort in it than they used to:April 17, 2020 3 areas to focus on to improve performance in group video conferences
Here are 3 areas you should invest time in to reduce the CPU use of your group video application:#1 – Layout vs simulcast
Simulcast is great – if used correctly.
It allows the SFU to send different levels of quality to different users in a conference.
How is that decision made?
Think about it. And see where you can shave off on the bitrates. The lower the total bitrate a device needs to deal with when it has to encode or decode – the lower the CPU use will be.#2 – Not everyone’s talking
Large conferences have certain dynamics. Not everyone is going to speak his mind. A few will be dominant, some will voice an opinion here and there and the rest will listen in.
Can you mute the participants not speaking? Is there an elegant way for you to do it in your application without sacrificing the user experience?
There are different ways to handle this. Anything from a dominant speaker, through the use of DTX towards automatic muting and unmuting of certain users.#3 – UI implementation
How you implemented your UI will affect performance.
The way you use CSS, HTML and your JS code will eat up the CPU without even dealing with audio or video processing.
Look at things like the events you process. Try not to run too much logic that ends up changing UI elements every 100 milliseconds of time or less on each media track – you’re going to have a lot of these taking place.My eBook on the topic is now available
If you are interested in how to further optimize for video conference sizes, then I just published an eBook about it called Optimizing Group Calling in WebRTC. It includes a lot more details and suggestions on the above 3 areas of focus as well as a bunch of other optimization techniques that I am sure you’ll find very useful.
The post Surviving WebRTC CPU requirements in large group calls appeared first on BlogGeek.me.
If you are going to start a WebRTC project that requires a media server, you better be sure you know how frequently as well as when was the last time the code got updated.
A WebRTC media server is a type of server that is required to build applications that offer group calling capabilities among other things. There are other types of WebRTC servers that are needed, but this is not the place or time to discuss them.Rising interest in WebRTC media servers
Here’s a discussion I had multiple times in the last month: People asking about this or that WebRTC media server or project, wanting to know if they should adopt it for their own application.
This rise stems from the increased interest in video conferencing due to the pandemic. Video has shown its usefulness in the biggest possible way. We’re all stuck at home, and the only way to communicate is by “calling”. Video adds context and meaning to voice only calling so it is becoming widespread.
In some cases, as in India, the government decided to put out funding for a video conferencing challenge, where vendors are invited to build applications for the local market. In others, remote-something is becoming a thing where the existing generic solutions don’t cut it (there are many such verticals).
As it so happens, a lot of teams are now trying to figure out which open source WebRTC media server they should pick and use.
There’s an article I wrote almost 3 years ago on 10 Tips for Choosing the Right WebRTC Open Source Media Server Framework. I took the time today to update it as well as the selection worksheet in it.
One thing that developers seem to miss is how easy it is to understand the freshness of the code – how up to date a WebRTC media server code really is.
So here we go.How do the most popular WebRTC media servers compare to each other?
What I like doing is using the insights feature in github. It gives a nice initial perspective of a project besides the popularity metrics of watches, starts and forks (they are nice, but just to get me interested – not it making an opinion).
For that purpose, I like looking at the Pulse, Contributors and Code frequency metrics provided by github.
Doing such a check is useless without context. And context is built by looking at alternatives. In this case, I decided to look at some of the most popular WebRTC media server alternatives out there: Janus, Jitsi, Kurento and mediasoup
Why these 4? Because they are mentioned in almost every conversation I have about open source WebRTC media servers.
Some of these projects are built out of multiple github repositories. For the purpose of this comparison, I tried looking at the main repo holding the media server itself. Here’s the ones I’ve used for each:
The github pulse lists recent activity of the project. I’ve looked at a period of 1 month here on all 4 projects to get the following picture:JanusJitsiKurentomediasoupAuthors141014Total commits7635842Files65569514Additions3,1522,0912922,670Deletions3631,8622141,993
A few thoughts:
The github contributors view gives us a nice time perspective of these projects, with a focus on who are the main contributors over time.
A few thoughts:
This chart on github shows the additions and deletions made to a project throughout its lifetime.
For the image below I tried aligning the projects as well as I could on the 10k range, which might have distorted them a bit, but should place them nicely in the context of each other. Notice that I couldn’t do that for mediasoup – see my thoughts below. Also note that the X axis of the timescale in each is different, but that wasn’t interesting for me for this comparison.
A few thoughts:
This looks like an obvious question, but it really isn’t.
Does this make JsSIP a dead project? Or is it just that there’s nothing much to add besides code fixes here and there?
(Interestingly, SIP.js shows totally different behavior)
When it comes to WebRTC, the same cannot be said. WebRTC is “work in progress” at its core. Browsers deprecate and introduce new features with each release, new codecs are introduced and the slew of use cases using WebRTC is still growing strong. This means that to keep pace with these changes, WebRTC media servers need to be updated as well. Otherwise, they wither and die, with time being unable to offer the level of quality and connectivity developers and users expect.What other criteria should you be looking for?
Freshness of code is only one criteria, but there are many more. The first one should probably be does this media server fit my requirements? Not all media servers are built equal or for the same purpose, and deciding which one is most suitable is important as well.
Other criteria include usage, maintainability, support, documentation, etc.
You can find the full list in my article about it – 10 Tips for Choosing the Right WebRTC Open Source Media Server Framework
And if this is of real interest to you, then you should look at your selection process itself. For that, I can suggest my free media server selection KPI sheet.
Oh, and once you’re there, think about scaling as well. I have an existing eBook about best practices in scaling WebRTC applications, and an upcoming eBook on Optimizing Group Video Calling in WebRTC (available for pre-purchase).
The post How to know if an open source WebRTC media server is kept up to date? appeared first on BlogGeek.me.
AV1 is coming to WebRTC sooner rather than later. Apparently so is HEVC. It is an AV1 vs HEVC game now, but sadly, these codecs are unavailable to the “rest of us”.
WebRTC codec wars were something we’ve seen in the past. During the early days of WebRTC there have been ongoing discussions if the mandatory video codec in WebRTC should be VP8 or H.264. The outcome was to have both of them mandatory to implement in browsers.
Fast forward to today, and life is simply. We have ubiquity and support across all browsers that have WebRTC in them, which is great.
COVID-19 is causing all communication vendors to fast forward and accelerate their roadmaps by 6-18 months. Those that don’t are going to be left behind on the other side of this pandemic.COVID-19 is fast forwarding all roadmaps and plans related to WebRTC, including codec improvements
This isn’t an attempt to scare anyone or to FUD people into doing things. It is just the way things are.
If you want to see how serious things are, just check what’s going on around you:
The AV1 vs HEVC angles here are VERY interesting.
HEVC requires royalties and is a licensing mess.
AV1 is so new it hasn’t even had an opportunity to cool down a bit after being taken out of the oven. Frankly? It is still half baked and requires a bit more cookin’ – and yet… it is now being rolled out in Google Duo.
The thing is, that 6 months back, video was nice to have. A feature that needs to be ticked in a long requirements list.
Today? Video first. All the rest comes later.
Zoom’s stock price and market cap is the best indicator of that change.A brief history of WebRTC video codecs
In less than 10 years, we’ve witnessed 3 codec generations in WebRTC:
With each generation of codec introduced, CPU and memory requirements grow along with the complexity of the codec and the resulting quality for a given bitrate increases.VP8/H.264
I’ve been working with H.264 since 200x. Probably somewhere in 2005. It was brand new at the time and was about to replace H.263 and all of its extensions.
Fast forward to around 2010, when you started it being deployed in almost all video conferencing room systems.
VP8 came to our lives along with WebRTC, in around 2012. It is comparable to VP8.
Both are probably at their peak right now when it comes to video calling:
This is the tipping point, where a new video codec is being sought after.
If you are using it today, you should be just fine. If you seriously want to be at the forefront of technology, right on the bleeding edge (and you will bleed – time, money and blood), then read on to your next alternatives.
And if you need to decide between VP8 and H.264, check out this free video course: H.264 or VP8?VP9
It should have been a VP9 vs HEVC thing and not an AV1 vs HEVC thing.
The next best thing in video codec was supposed to be VP9. VP9 is the replacement to HEVC. HEVC is what comes next after H.264, and the intent was always for VP9 to be the alternative to HEVC.VP9 gives you either less bitrate for the same quality or more quality for the same bitrate than VP8
As things go, VP9 advantages are just what you’d expect in a new codec generation:
What VP9 was supposed to bring to the world is SVC – scalability. With VP9 SVC we were supposed to improve resiliency of video as well as the ability to scale large group video calls better than ever before.
Need a boost and have a very good grasp at who is in a call before everyone joins? VP9 might be a good alternative for you.AV1
I’ve written at length about AV1 when the specification got released. You can learn about AV1 there.
There are those who believe AV1 is ready and have been ready for quite some time. Reality says otherwise. It isn’t for the faint of heart at this point. More on that – below.
Adventurous? Go AV1!Where in the world is WebRTC VP9 video call?
VP9 shipped in Chrome 48 for WebRTC. That was January 2016. 4 years later and it is safe to say that not many are using VP9 in WebRTC.Adoption of VP9 is slow
The two main places where VP9 is making sense?
Once AV1 was announced, the debate began if one should even try and adopt VP9 or wait for AV1 instead. The majority are waiting for AV1. Laziness at its best (and what I would have selected as well if you’re wondering).
The other reason for delaying and skipping a generation is investment in VP9. Since everyone’s looking at AV1, VP9 is left with less eyeballs and developers improving it. Add to that the slow release of SVC support to it in Chrome and the fact that Safari still doesn’t support VP9 and you can understand the reluctance of going this route.Apple’s appetite for HEVC in WebRTC
The big Apple is insatiable. Apple has been banking on HEVC for many years now, and where HEVC & WebRTC fits in Apple has been a topic here in the past as well.Apple is banking on both royalty bearing (HEVC) and royalty free (AV1) video codecs
On Apple’s release notes for Safari Technology Preview 104 there’s a bullet point that shows where things are headed:
Added initial support for WebRTC HEVC
I wonder whatever for?
To me, this is the biggest conundrum at the moment. A piece of this puzzle is missing. What would make developers use HEVC if it is only available in Safari and nowhere else? This isn’t the app store. It is the web.
Time will tell.WebRTC AV1 support in Google Duo
I said it before and I’ll iterate it again. AV1 is too new. Too early to be adopted in WebRTC or real time communications. And yet… Google just announced supporting AV1 in Google Duo:[…] in the coming week, we’re rolling out a new video codec technology to improve video call quality and reliability, even on very low bandwidth connections.
They made sure to add a nice moving GIF so you can see the difference between “a video codec” and AV1 in the same bitrate.
Is that other codec VP8? VP9? H.264? HEVC? Maybe H.261…
Are they using it for all Duo calls? In all devices? In all network conditions?
The only thing I could find is that this rolls out to Android with iOS 2 weeks behind in the roll out. There are more things left unsaid.Some thoughts here
We’re all stuck at home burning the networks. The large streaming vendors are lowering resolutions (and bitrates) for their default players in certain countries. This reduces the CPU load, making room for improving quality on lower bitrates. And that leads to the ability (and need) of better video codecs.Why not VP9?
Google Duo most probably already makes use of VP9. Maybe even HEVC on iOS devices due to hardware acceleration benefits. When it comes to 1:1 sessions, there’s no real reason to stick to a single video codec for all sessions.
With Apple working publicly now on HEVC in WebRTC, it put pressure on Google, and getting AV1 into Duo in order to bolster their side in the AV1 vs HEVC debate became a pressing matter. Google Duo’s 1:1 call scenarios were the most suitable candidate for Google to make that stand.Enter AV1
When a new video codec generation was introduced, the thinking was simple: “we are expecting it to support a higher resolution, at a higher bitrate, with a higher CPU consumption”
In 2020, things are changing.Sometimes, all you need is a better fit into smaller spaces (like low bitrate) Bigger is no longer better with video codecs
I have 4K resolution on my desktop and laptop. 1080p on my phone and TV. I am happy with 720p content most of the time. I hate fonts on a 4K screen that aren’t enlarged (the damn characters are just too small to read).
What is the value of higher resolution? HDR content? 8K? 360? VR? If all I need is just plain video, no higher resolution is required. We’re all content most of the time with 720p resolutions for business meetings anyway.
Resolution requirements for most content types and use cases are not going to get higher any time soon.
We are probably at peak resolution already.
So we are free to think of next gen video codecs as ones that help consume lower bitrates.
There’s a distinction here. While any new video codec generation consumes lower bitrates for the same resolution/quality, the main purpose of these new video codecs was almost always in increasing the resolution as well.
AV1 on mobile makes perfect sense here. Especially for low resolutions – since we can have some CPU to spare for that scenario.A quick FAQ on the latest WebRTC video codecs Is HEVC (H.265) supported in WebRTC?
No. Not officially.
Apple is adding support for it in Safari, but no other browser has added support for it or indicated plans to add support for it
Yes, but not in browsers.
Apple will introduce HEVC in Safari, but no other vendor will. If you build your own native application for either PC or mobile you can add HEVC as another supported codec and use it in your application.
That depends. If you want to add AV1, you need to make sure your use case fits well, as well as the devices you expect your users to have.
You will also need to put a considerable investment of time and money to make it happen.
My suggestion for most vendors would be to wait with AV1 support.
That is a good question with no good answer.
I believe it is a matter of timing. When the time came to adopt VP9, AV1 was already announced and on its way, so vendors preferred to wait and jump directly to AV1 instead of going for VP9.
VP9 doesn’t enjoy much hardware acceleration, which also makes it CPU intensive, requiring companies to tweak, fine tune and optimize their systems to use it. That kind of work is something many prefer not to do.
We’re at war again. The video codec war of WebRTC. And this time, each vendor needs to pick a strategy to play.Is there a single video codec today that will answer all of your WebRTC needs?
We’ve got multiple codecs in our warchest: VP8, H.264, VP9, AV1 and sometimes even HEVC now.
Which one will we be using?
Which ones will we be using?
Here, scenarios matter. Different scenarios will call for totally different video codec selection to optimize for quality, CPU use, performance, bitrate, cost, etc.
In 1:1 sessions, you may want to keep your options open – use the best one dynamically just by making a decision as the session is set up.
For group calls, will you be using a single, static video codec? Or allow for multiple ones? Will you have multiple codecs in a single group session? Are you going to have an SFU tweaked and tuned for that? Will you pick the best video codec for a session and then dynamically switch over as the nature of the session changes (=someone joins and leaves who has certain limitations)?
What about consumers? What kind of video codec selection strategies are going to be prevalent there? How are they going to be different than the ones we see in enterprise solutions? What will be the difference for mobile first or application based versus web based solutions?WebRTC differentiation: the next battlefield lines are being drawn WebRTC differentiation is back in focus
We live in interesting times.
Codec selection has never been more interesting or important.
While WebRTC offers 2 codecs (H.264 & VP8), most browsers support VP9 and now we’re seeing browser vendors either adding HEVC or using AV1 in their own apps.
If media quality is at the core of your service (think carefully about your answer to this question), then rethinking your video codec selection strategy might be in order.
It is going to require research and investment. But this is where the future lies for video codecs in WebRTC.
Software as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, Communications Platform as a Service, Video Conferencing as a Service, but what about Gaming as a Service? There have been a few attempts at Cloud Gaming, most notably Google’s recently launched Stadia. Stadia is no stranger to WebRTC, but can others leverage WebRTC […]
When someone says WebRTC Server – what does he really mean? There are 4 different WebRTC servers that you need to know about: application, signaling, NAT traversal and media.
WebRTC is a communications standard that enables us to build a variety of applications. The most common ones will be voice or video calling services (1:1 or group calls). You can use it for broadcasts, live streaming, private/secure messaging, etc.
To get it working requires using a multitude of “WebRTC servers” – machines that reside in the cloud (or at least remotely enough and reachable) and provide functionality that is necessary to get WebRTC sessions connected properly.
What I’d like to do here is explain what types of WebRTC servers exist, what they are used for and when will you be needing them. There are 4 types of servers detailed in this article:There are 4 types of WebRTC servers you need to know about
More of the audio-visual type? I’ve recorded a quick free 3-part video course on WebRTC servers.
Not exactly a WebRTC server, but you can’t really have a service without it
Think of it as the server that serves you the web page when you open the application’s website itself. It hosts the HTML, CSS and JS files. A few (or many) images. Some of it might not even be served directly from the application server but rather from a CDN for the static files.
What’s so interesting about WebRTC application servers? Nothing at all. They are just there and are needed, just like in any other web application out there.WebRTC signaling servers WebRTC signaling servers are in charge of connecting users to one another
Signaling servers for WebRTC are sometimes embedded or collocated/co-hosted with the application servers, but more often than not they are built and managed separately from the application itself.
While WebRTC handles the media, it leaves the signaling to “someone else” to take care of. WebRTC will generate SDP – these are fragments of messages that the application needs to pass between the users. Passing these messages is the main concern of a signaling server.A WebRTC signaling server passes signaling messages between the users to establish a session
There are 4 main signaling protocols that are used today with WebRTC, each lending itself to different signaling servers that will be used in the application:
SIP, XMPP and MQTT all have existing servers that can be deployed with WebRTC.
The proprietary option takes many shapes and sizes. Node.js is quite a common server alternative used for WebRTC signaling (just make sure not to pick an outdated alternative – that’s quite a common mistake in WebRTC).
If you are going towards the proprietary route:
To work well, WebRTC requires NAT traversal servers. These WebRTC servers are in charge of making sure you can send media from one browser to another.
STUN is used to answer the question “what is my public IP address?” and then share the answer with the other user in the session, so he can try and use that address to send media directly.
TRUN is used to relay the media through it (so it costs more in bandwidth costs), and is used when you can’t really reach the other user directly.
A few quick thoughts here:
WebRTC media servers are servers that act as WebRTC clients but run on the server side. They are termination points for the media where we’d like to take action. Popular tasks done on WebRTC media servers include:
The adventurous and strong hearted will go and develop their own WebRTC media server. Most would pick a commercial service or an open source one. For the latter, check out these tips for choosing WebRTC open source media server framework.
In many cases, the thing developers are looking for is support for group calling, something that almost always requires a media server. In that case, you need to decide if you’d go with the classing (and now somewhat old) MCU mixing model or with the more accepted and modern SFU routing model. You will also need to think a lot about the sizing of your WebRTC media server.
For recording WebRTC sessions, you can either do that on the client side or the server side. In both cases you’ll be needing a server, but what that server is and how it works will be very different in each case.
If it is broadcasting you’re after, then you need to think about the broadcast size of your WebRTC session.A quick FAQ on WebRTC servers Can I run WebRTC without any server?
Not really. You will need somehow to know who to communicate with and in many cases, you will need to somehow negotiate IP addresses and even route data through a server to connect your session properly.Will WebRTC servers spy on me and my data?
That depends on the service you are using, as different implementations will put their focus on different features.
In general, signaling and NAT traversal servers in WebRTC don’t have access to the actual data. Media servers often have (and need) access to the actual data.
Yes. You can host your WebRTC servers on AWS. Many popular WebRTC services are hosted today on AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Digital Ocean servers. I am sure other hosting providers and data center vendors work as well.Can I run WebRTC on my PHP WordPress site?
WebRTC can be added to any WordPress, PHP or other website. In such a case, the PHP WordPress server will serve as the application server and you will need to add into the mix the other WebRTC servers: signaling server, NAT traversal server and sometimes media servers.Know your WebRTC servers
No matter how or what it is you are developing with WebRTC, you should know what WebRTC servers are and what they are used for.
If you want to expand your knowledge and understanding of WebRTC, check out my WebRTC training courses.
A couple of weeks ago, the Chrome team announced an interesting Intent to Experiment on the blink-dev list about an API to do some custom processing on top of WebRTC. The intent comes with an explainer document written by Harald Alvestrand which shows the basic API usage. As I mentioned in my last post, this is the […]
The post True End-to-End Encryption with WebRTC Insertable Streams appeared first on webrtcHacks.
WebRTC has made getting and sending real time video streams (mostly) easy. The next step is doing something with them, and machine learning lets us have some fun with those streams. Last month I showed how to run Computer Vision (CV) locally in the browser. As I mentioned there, local is nice, but sometimes more performance […]
The post Accelerated Computer Vision inside a WebRTC Media Server with Intel OWT appeared first on webrtcHacks.
Time for another opinionated post. This time on… end-to-end encryption (e2ee). Zoom apparently claims it supports e2ee while it can not satisfy that promise. Is WebRTC any better? Zoom does not have End to End Encryption Let’s get to the bottom of things fast: Boo Zoom! I reviewed how Zoom’s implements their web client last […]
The post Does your video call have End-to-End Encryption? Probably not.. appeared first on webrtcHacks.
I am launching a new WebRTC codelab course, created together with Philipp Hancke. This goes into the intricacies of WebRTC signaling and best practices.The State of online WebRTC resources
Where should you start with WebRTC? There’s not enough information about it and at the same time too much information about it. Most of it is old and outdated. Needle in a haystack.Up to date WebRTC code is hard to come by
Sift through discuss-webrtc, stackoverflow and the W3C WebRTC mailing list? All great. But there’s no explanation besides pieces of code. It lacks context.
Read the spec and work your way from there? If you don’t fall asleep, you might just find that browsers aren’t exactly spec compliant yet anyways.
Books? None from 2020. None from 2019. Less than 10 in total. A handful.
How about online courses? There are a few on udemy and pluralsight, but they are also old and broken by now.
My own Advanced WebRTC Architecture course? While great, I purposefully haven’t gone through the APIs of WebRTC, understanding they change so frequently.
A codelab then? Sure. find one that works and explains signaling properly.
The way I see it, there are 3 types of WebRTC codelabs today:
I’ve been working with Philipp here and there in the last couple of years. He is fun to work with and knows everything there is to know about WebRTC and the intricacies of its APIs along with the status of browsers.
Here’s a bit about him:
I don’t quite recall how, but we got to the point a couple of months back that it would make sense to create a solid WebRTC codelab that covers the signaling aspects of WebRTC. Simply because there is nothing out there that does the trick properly.WebRTC: The missing codelab
Fast forward to today, we have a codelab course for you:
The codelab has 4 parts to it:
We’ve made sure the lessons aren’t boring by making them interactive. I’ll be there with Philipp, taking the part of the student asking questions. The intent is to try and get into his head, understand his thought processes. What do you gain out of it? You will understand why things are implemented that way and not only how.Interested?
Head to the WebRTC developer courses – there’s a 20% discount until the end of April.
If you are uncertain, then you are invited to join this week’s WebRTC Live webinar where I’ll be talking with Arin Sime about the codelab. Alternatively, just go through the introduction module and make a decision.
If you know that this is for you, then there’s a 50% discount if you enroll in March (that’s in the next 2 days) by using FASTMOVER as your coupon code on checkout (for any of the WebRTC course bundles).
If you’ve enrolled in my All Included course in 2020, then you are already automatically enrolled to the codelab. If you enrolled throughout 2019, then you are eligible for a 50% discount during April.
Don’t touch your face! To prevent the spread of disease, health bodies recommend not touching your face with unwashed hands. This is easier said than done if you are sitting in front of a computer for hours. I wondered, is this a problem that can be solved with a browser? We have a number of […]
The post Stop touching your face using a browser and TensorFlow.js appeared first on webrtcHacks.
The WebRTC market global key players may be different than you think. They include the browser vendors, a few CPaaS vendors, dominant “creators” of WebRTC sessions and… open source projects.
The title for this post came from one of the many lead generating headlines I see for reports that mention companies that no longer exist in our market. It is sad in a way: The same market report released every year, with the main difference between the last one being X+1 where X denotes a year mentioned in the report.
(if you are about to purchase a market report on WebRTC – make sure the companies mentioned there actually do something meaningful in WebRTC – check against the companies listed here – or just ask me)
My intent here is to actually ask the question – Who are the WebRTC Market Global Key Players? – and then also answer it.
I’d like to segment the key players in WebRTC into 4 main groups:
There are exactly 4 browser vendors that are interesting. The rest? Less so.
I will list them here in the order of their importance to WebRTC.Google Chrome
This one is obvious. Google is the main driving force behind WebRTC. They aren’t alone in being there, but they are the dominant browser player in market share AND they host the most popular implementation of WebRTC (that would be libwebrtc).
In many ways, Google decides where WebRTC is headed. It does that in 3 different angles:1. libwebrtc and Chromium
Maintaining the most popular WebRTC implementation (did I say that already?).
So much so that all browser vendors use this implementation in one way or another (either directly or indirectly by copying the pieces of it that they want/need).
I’ve added here also Chromium. This is the open source components of the Chrome browser and it is used in MANY important projects:
THE market leader in browsers.
Taken from StatCounter (and yes. It also includes mobile)
Need I say more on how that influences WebRTC adoption and implementation?
3. Google Apps
We used to have only Hangouts using WebRTC at Google.
Now we’ve got a lot more.
The shortlist I am aware of include:
For these, Google has their own agenda with their own WebRTC roadmap. This means that the requirements that fall into any of these services end up either directly as part of the open source WebRTC implementation distributed by Google – or Chrome alone.Apple Safari
Apple has been quiet about WebRTC. That’s true about Apple and a lot of other technologies as well.
That said, Safari now supports WebRTC in Mac and iOS for a couple of years now (there are those who missed that fact).
While Apple has no other direct involvement around WebRTC, all developers and entrepreneurs are affected by their decisions about WebRTC. A lot more than in any other case.
Point in case is WebRTC iPhone support:
While Edge didn’t enjoy any growth or market share, this may soon change.
Microsoft decided a bit over a year ago to stop investing its resources and focus on building a browser engine, and instead took Chromium “as is”, building their Edge browser on top of it.
Somehow, I am assuming (hopefully) that this change also means that more Microsoft engineers are involved in the inner workings of Chromium itself, optimizing it to run on Windows and elsewhere for their own scenarios.
Apple is more important than Microsoft when it comes to WebRTC simply due to the current state of market share of their browsers.Mozilla Firefox
Firefox is the 4th important browser and decision maker in the table of WebRTC.
It isn’t as important as the rest since its only “contribution” to the game is Firefox itself whereas the other browser vendors here come with operating systems and applications of their own as well.
Nevertheless, it is way more important than all other browsers not mentioned here combined.2. CPaaS vendors CPaaS vendors offer the tools for others to embed WebRTC communications
CPaaS vendors enable others to build their applications without delving into the communication technology stack too much. In many cases, that includes support for WebRTC as well.
To me, they are key players within this industry, and I want to mention those that are the most important when it comes to WebRTC adoption.Twilio
Twilio is the leader in CPaaS. It is also one of the dominant players when it comes to WebRTC in CPaaS.
When it comes to voice calls via WebRTC done through CPaaS, Twilio are probably the largest player. Twilio has a lot of visibility to issues and requirements related to voice use cases, especially ones related to call centers.
Twilio is also growing in their video use of WebRTC.Vonage
Vonage is the owner of TokBox, now part of its API platform.
As one of the leading video API platforms using WebRTC, TokBox is important. As with Twilio, this stems from their visibility to issues and requirements, but in this case, related to video use cases.Others?
There are other interesting CPaaS vendors in the WebRTC space, but none of them are dominant enough.
The ones worth mentioning in this context?
Customer facing services are the end products. What users interact with when it comes to WebRTC. This title won’t get a vendor to be a global key player unless there’s a real reason…Facebook
Facebook is huge. Doesn’t matter if you look at Messenger, WhatsApp or Instagram.
Messenger uses WebRTC.
Instagram uses WebRTC for its live chat.
WhatsApp doesn’t use WebRTC directly, but there’s ongoing effort to consolidate the infrastructure of all these messaging platforms at Facebook. Will we be seeing 2 billion WhatsApp users able to conduct voice and video calls by way WebRTC in 2020?
Then there’s the Portal device.
Anyways, the sheer size of Facebook, along with their work with WebRTC places them as a market leader in WebRTC use. And due to their size, they are also largely alone here.No one else
There are vendors that contribute large WebRTC traffic. But other than Facebook, I am not sure who else to include here.
Probably Amazon. Due to multiple products and that minor thing called AWS.
I decided not to put any of the enterprise vendors. I think they should matter more, but got a feeling that they don’t at the moment.4. Open source projects Open source projects are at the heart of the WebRTC ecosystem
These are sometimes neglected when discussing market leaders, which is rather sad. A lot of the development and WebRTC traffic out there ends up going through some of these open source projects, which is why I’ve added them here.
It is apparent that some projects should have a seat at the table. When Kurento got acquired by Twilio, there was a year when many of the discussions I had was about finding a suitable replacement for them.
If WebRTC open source projects fail to make progress, upgrade or just die, they affect those using them. The popular open source projects matter. A lot. They are at the heart of the WebRTC ecosystem.Janus
I’ve decided to put Janus first because:
Jitsi is now owned by 8×8 after switching hands.
It is still run as an independent open source project and is widely deployed.FreeSWITCH
FreeSWITCH comes from the telephony world.
Not in all of the deployments of FreeSWITCH out there WebRTC is used, but when companies need to connect telephony to WebRTC, they often go with FreeSWITCH for that.
Since FreeSWITCH is so common in so many of these instances, they are important for the WebRTC ecosystemKurento (to some extent)
To some extent, Kurento still matters.
Kurento is a shadow of its former glory prior to the acquisition. It isn’t part of Twilio – Twilio acqui-hired the developers, but not the name. Kurento lives on, but different.
It is being developed alongside OpenVidu, but the progress made to both seems somehow slower than the other open source projects mentioned here.
I am not sure they are a key player anymore.Others?
There are other important projects that can/should make the title of key players in WebRTC. The 3 that immediately come to mind are mediasoup, PION and Asterisk.
Why haven’t I added them? Because their popularity is lower than the others.
For mediasoup and PION it is just that they are newer. They are growing, so I believe they will become key players if they continue in the current adaption trajectory.
For Asterisk, it is because they are used in a similar fashion to FreeSWITCH. I just don’t see them as much in the conversations around WebRTC that I have.What does it mean to be a “WebRTC Market Global Key Player”?
This is where I started the article, and I think it bears thinking about.
When one coins a company as a “WebRTC Market Global Key Player” what does that mean exactly?
For me that means that they have the ability and potential to affect what happens with WebRTC moving forward.
While the standardization work is done in the W3C, a lot of the work happens elsewhere. In what Google places into Chrome as experiments and later as features. In what Apple decides to implement or not implement in Apple. In what CPaaS vendors deliver to their many customers and the feedback they get. In the companies that build large scale products and in the open source projects that make up a large portion of these products.
There are steps one can take to become a more dominant player. To be able to join the conversation and affect where WebRTC is headed. While I’ve conversed with many who want to become dominant players, only a few have the courage and the willingness to invest the time and resources needed.
Want to know who the global key players are? Don’t read it in a copy+paste research paper that is poorly updated…
When most people think of WebRTC they think of video communications. Similarly, home surveillance is usually associated with video streaming. That’s why I was surprised to hear about a home security project that leverages WebRTC not for video streaming, but for the DataChannel. WebRTC’s DataChannel might not demo as well as a video call, but […]
The post Private Home Surveillance with the WebRTC DataChannel (Ivelin Ivanov) appeared first on webrtcHacks.
If you are developing with WebRTC, then there is special care you need to take to browser releases, as these can break your app. Here’s how I’d go about dealing with this problem.
Twice in the past week I’ve been asked about backward compatibility with WebRTC. It is a loaded topic – one that lends itself to this kind of a metaphor about developing with WebRTC:
When you’re developing with WebRTC (and I daresay when you’re a developer in the Google WebRTC team), it feels like replacing a wheel while driving the car on a highway.Browsers release cycle
Browser release cycles are… short. And complicated.
And that’s the simple part of the whole story – it comprises only the right column of this diagram from 2017:
Hand drawn guide about different versions of Browsers.
Because no one told me Canary is not about an actual bird. pic.twitter.com/amerBhf8tp
Browsers auto-update. They do that at fast release cycles that are shorter than 2 months between large releases (unless they are Safari), and they often ship and push security or stability releases in-between these main releases when needed.
Browser update cadence will either stay the same in 2020 or become even shorter.WebRTC’s pace of change
When I think about the experience with WebRTC in the past few years, it boils down to something like this:
For end users it is a real joy. Most don’t even know they are using WebRTC, but they just do.
Developers, on the other hand, are on a rollercoaster ride that they’d rather not be on. Constant changes are making the experience challenging.
To be fair – this is a lot better that previous alternatives we had
There are 3 different ways in which WebRTC is constantly changing:
These aren’t just introduction of new features and capabilities. They almost always include changes in the behavior of WebRTC itself.
Don’t expect the pace of change of WebRTC to slow in 2020.WebRTC server-side challenges
If your app runs in the cloud and in front of browsers then your life is relatively simple. Using tools such as adapter.js along with some good sense of using the beta and even dev channels of the various browsers you will be fine for the most part.
Things get complicated once you start using media servers.
Most media servers today are open source. The teams maintaining them are rather small and they have a lot on their plate. The commercial ones don’t fare much better here either.
Now imagine. The Google WebRTC team cranks out features, bug fixes and optimizations. Their main focus is their own needs, along with what goes in the spec and interoperability with other browsers. They wouldn’t be able to slow down or explain everything that goes on to everyone out there even if they wanted to.
Take this small example – DTLS 1.0 deprecation:
Why all these changes? Vendors not fixing their media servers. For a span of a full year.
Here’s what will happen when Chrome M82 rolls out: some services will break.
Google is in the right here.
Server vendors need to keep up with the pace.
And this is an “easy” one. That gets announced and noticed.
WebRTC media servers have their hands full in keeping up with the pace. Pick one that is lively and well maintained
Beyond pace of change, you will need to deal with scaling. If that’s what you’re after, then my ebook on Best Practices in Scaling WebRTC Applications is the thing you need.Purchase WebRTC Scaling Best Practices Mobile applications and IOT devices
Up next – applications.
With browsers, we’re both at the mercy of browser vendors but we’re also “saved” by their effort and work. This causes us to sweat when it comes to developing media servers that work well with browsers. But what about mobile applications then?
Since they are acting just like WebRTC clients in browsers would, we need to update them to keep them functioning and working in front of the browsers. Why? Because some of the changes browser vendors introduce are breaking changes while others are about important optimizations.
If you are using Google’s libwebrtc then check out my best practices of using it. You’ll find I suggest upgrading multiple times a year but not at Google’s pace. The reasoning behind this approach is to balance your sanity versus how far away you are from the latest release. A kind of risk management effort.
On mobile, a WebRTC application must be updated a couple of times a year just to keep working in front of web browsersOn-premise deployments and WebRTC
On-premise brings with it its own challenges, especially today. It used to be that on-premise was easy and cloud was challenging but the wheel has turned.
WebRTC is just another headache here.
If you run an on-premise operation that relies on web browsers for access, then you’re in for a treat with WebRTC. You’ll need to be able to frequently update your software. A lot more frequent than the “never” alternative that is so common in this space.
With on-premise you’ll need to rethink your strategy for updates and upgrades. Automate it somehow. Have it done without “human intervention”. Not only because of WebRTC mind you – it will be more about security patches. But WebRTC requires it as well.
With on-premise, WebRTC will force you to adopt cloud-development paradigmsFigure out (plan and execute) your own pace with WebRTC
How are you going to keep the pace of change of browsers and WebRTC?
This is something you need to ask yourself and answer.
A few suggestions if I may:
Obviously, there are more things you can and should do. I am here to help with it – just contact me.
The post How can your WebRTC application keep pace with browser releases? appeared first on BlogGeek.me.