Alain,

I guess you didn’t see the latest news. Microsoft have decided to embrace WebRTC and actively add WebRTC 1.0 support to Edge.

Google invested in WebRTC with thousands of codes and billions of dollars injected in the chrome browser, followed by Firefox and Opera… Then Microsoft came intruding with Abject-RTC ah pardon Object.

Will we have 2 APIs to deal with in real time communication ?

We keep developing the WebRTC-based applications and not to worry about oRTC.

Sojharo,

The better question is when WebRTC 1.0 will be released. Currently, best case is end of this year the spec gets completed, and the actual standard released sometime in the first half of 2016.

When do you think WebRTC 1.1 will be released? Is Microsoft Edge going to support it?

Dean is absolutely correct. Frozen Mountain already provides an SDK API for true portability that uses Google’s implementation for Chrome, FireFox and Opera, provides an ActiveX (for now) for IE until ORTC comes out in which case it will use that, as well as support for Safari. Additionally, there have been many requests for WebRTC without the Web – the ability to have native applications send “wire comparable” WebRTC requests so Frozen Mountain provides native Android, iOS, .NET, Java and Xamarin support. We are assuming this battle will go on for some time so the only way to achieve portability will be another API. Maybe sad in some ways, but the big guys are driven by what makes business for them, not acceptance of standards.

From my recollection, the WebRTC 2.0 reference was used loosely to describe ORTC to those who were not familiar with the W3C ORTC work before an actual designation on the ORTC API was attributed.

The 1.1 designation came from the W3C ORTC CG back in April in a CG meeting: http://youtu.be/hVlfP-OYsQc?t=8m47s. In an effort to not create confusion we took a 1.1 designation instead of 1.0 for the initial API, considering the current WebRTC spec would be 1.0. I think it was Peter Thatcher from Google that proposed it, Justin seconded it, there was no opposition. From this point forward we referred to ORTC as 1.1

Since the goal here is to unify these 2 specs, the translation manifested itself as such: ORTC 1.1 = WebRTC 1.1

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Dean,

You are of course correct. The more complexity and ambiguity, the better the WebRTC API Platform vendors gain from it.

Erik,

To make things clear – you should have nothing but pride for what you are doing. As I stated, being in your position, I’d do the same 🙂

As for naming, it is important simply because the idea is to have more adoption for WebRTC, and having an additional name to explain is a hassle. Since WebRTC is all about reduction of barrier and friction (see my latest post) – then this is an issue.

Having a brittle proof of concept or demo is just fine in my book.

It took Google many months to stabilize their WebRTC implementation and I am sure there’s still much to be improved.

Microsoft are working in a different version release cycles than Google. They don’t throw a new version to the market every 6 weeks – rather a year or two. So it makes sense to see them as a slower player. I am sure that once they get to implement and launch ORTC/WebRTC officially in their browser, it will be a lot better than what you can find from them at the moment in this domain.

Ted,

Only time will tell. I have less of a bad impression of Microsoft; but I can easily see your point.