We set VoLTE & RCS side by side in comparison to WebRTC previously, and we bring in the discussion of ORTC vs WebRTC for another round in the ring.
Their relation is intrinsic, and they might not even be competitors, but we believe in the value of juxtaposing them for clarity.
ORTC refers to Object-Real Time Communications.
It is a free, open project that enables mobile endpoints to talk to servers and web browsers with real-time communications. It is supported by both Microsoft and Google.
In a flash survey done by Tsahi Levent-Levi, the perception of ORTC is a huge toss up. It is known as WebRTC 1.1 or 2.0 to some, while others think it is entirely different to WebRTC.
Unfortunately, the haze has thickened, and for good reason.
Will Google allow ORTC to replace WebRTC 1.0 as a 1.1 or a huge jump to 2.0? It seems like a naming issue and it has not progressed to being a separate RTC API so devs be given a wide berth for the confusion.
It is currently being shipped in the new Microsoft browser, Edge.
The end goal of ORTC is entirely the same as WebRTC, to allow devs to build real-time communications applications and features with power and flexibility.
The major objects for ORTC below are used for encoding, encryption and NAT/FW Traversal settings.
Image via ortc.org
The main difference with ORTC is that it uses separate send and receive objects, with support for simulcast and layered video coding. Also, it might be an easier fit devs using legacy systems.
A misconception is that ORTC is a Microsoft initiative.
The ORTC API was designed within the ORTC W3C Community Group originally founded by Hookflash, with Microsoft supporting and participating in refining the initiative.
Clearly, the confusion does not help.
WebRTC refers to Web Real-Time Communications.
It is a free, open technology project that solves incompatibilities between devices for real-time communications.
It has grown to be an industry and standards effort to provide both browsers and mobile applications with Real-Time Communications (RTC) capabilities such as P2P video, audio voice, and data communication via simple APIs.
As we are doing a comparison with ORTC, we will refer to it as WebRTC 1.0
WebRTC takes away the barriers by removing the need for a physical client for each provider and for a user ID (email address etc).
Depending on the browser and mobile platform, the major components below allow for access to camera and mic to capture media, set up audio/video calls and allow endpoints to share data via P2P connections.
The popular Tango app which has 70M MAUs, also has a free calling feature called Tango Out, with WebRTC powering their App-App and App-PSTN calls for all their users.
When it comes to ORTC vs WebRTC, both are initiatives to improve real-time communications, and still works in progress. The protocols are practically identical on the wire, with slight variations from direct control to the use of Session Description Protocol (SDP).
None of them will claim to be a finished product. SDP is being improved at the moment, and there are also ORTC API elements in the chrome source code, but we will have to wait and see how they evolve in tandem or possibly merge into one.
Hookflash, the company that initiated ORTC has been instrumental in making such a cross-industry collaboration happen and thankfully, there is only one winner in this game — Devs.
With more direct control for developers with a quick rate of evolution, WebRTC has the opportunity to be universally used for enabling global communications.
|Definition||Web Real-Time Communications||Object-Real Time Communications|
|Protocol||Internet Protocol||Internet Protocol|
|Developed by||Open Source, Web Developer Community||Open Source, Web Developer Community|
|Device||Platform and Device independent: Web, Mobile||Platform and Device independent: Web, Mobile|
|Signalling||Slightly Defined (SDP)||Undefined|
|Coverage||Internet Data||Internet Data|
|Media||H.264 AVC, Libjingle ICE, SDP defined||SVC, ORTC ICE, Simulcast, Chromium Fork|
|Advantages||Full Stack control||Multiple Media Streams, Non Telephony use cases|
|Challenges||Controls abstracted behind SDP||Media Streams Not Symmetrical|
Since 1957, when a five-year-old boy with perfect pitch first phreaked AT&T switches and invented phreaking, phones have been a target for different types of fraud that costs customers and phone companies billions of dollars. However, if you’re using the… read more
Verification serves as an effective method for securing your user base, reducing fraudulent or duplicate signups, and for two-factor authentication (requiring user to be in possession of the phone during signup). Sinch verification products can be integrated into your Android,… read more
We’ve given you some of the reasons verification is useful and becoming increasingly necessary, notably: Phone numbers serve as a username with longevity Reduce fraudulent or duplicate signups Two factor authentication (require user to be in possession of a phone… read more