There's plenty of news coming out about Web-based real-time communications (WebRTC), and it comes out on a fairly regular basis. But amid all the news about new communications systems and technologies and applications powered by this new protocol, there is some key support absent. That's leaving some to wonder if WebRTC is really the powerhouse it appears to be, or if it's simply a flash in the pan that's selling too hard.
Perhaps the biggest problem, to those taking a more cautious view of WebRTC, is that two of the biggest brands out there--Apple and Microsoft--aren't involved in WebRTC at all. Safari is set to have no contact with WebRTC, at least for now, and Microsoft is actively working on a counter-branded product, CU-RTC-WEB. Meanwhile, this leaves Google's Chrome, Mozilla's Firefox and the Opera browser to work with the WebRTC platform, and leaves a fairly substantial chunk of the market without the option.
That could, as expressed by Wainhouse Research senior partner Andrew Davis, limit WebRTC's future, particularly in the short term. Davis followed up that expression by saying, "It's not clear how interoperable these things will be. And at least so far in my experience browser-based audio-video solutions don't provide very good performance. I think there's a chance both of these issues will be resolved over time. But I don't think it will be this year, and I'm not even sure it's going to be next year."
Meanwhile, others point to the sheer amount of possibility WebRTC offers -- like medical websites boasting direct connection to doctors, or job-hunting websites with direct connection to employers where interviews could be staged immediately -- and suggest that the limited number of browsers that work with this technology may not be a problem. What's more, mobile providers are eager to offer such services as a branded service -- the phrase, "Video chat brought to you by AT&T" for example, is a compelling prospect to some companies -- and several hardware makers are also eager to get in on the action, especially session border controller makers and several carrier network equipment makers.
Indeed, those like Andrew Davis have a point in that interoperability may prove to be an issue. Plus, Microsoft isn't likely to let WebRTC waltz in and take over market space Skype owns without putting up some resistance. But then, consider how easy it is to have more than one Web browser available on a desktop, laptop, or other device at any given time. It may well be that Internet Explorer users will stick to Internet Explorer for normal browsing, but switch to Firefox or Chrome to take advantage of WebRTC. Plus there are the issues of individual apps; granted, iPhone users may not have a WebRTC function in Safari, but many app makers are looking into bringing in a kind of WebRTC functionality to individual apps.
Indeed, WebRTC may take some time to get started fully. It's been a long time in coming, so why shouldn't there be some time until it reaches its fullest potential in terms of user base? Still, it's likely that before too much longer, a lot more people will be using this platform to keep in touch.
Edited by
Rachel Ramsey
