#WebRTC Players turning to Asia for growth.

CafeX made an announcement this week-end about their new Japanese partnership, allowing them to extend their sales reach to North and South-East Asia. Just as I had put the final touch on my “webRTC in Asia report“, with a special section on Japan with analysis of Dialogic and Twilio approach to doing WebRTC Business in Japan, another event that just stresses the importance of Asia for WebRTC vendors.


For everybody in the WebRTC ecosystem, CafeX is not an unknown player. Focussing early on on on-premises solutions, and communicating about how they fit in an omni-channel strategy, they have been recently pushing their call center and support solution “LiveAssist” front and central.


Most vendors are still focussing on NA or EU. Both North-America and European Union have a GDP around 20M of billions (USD) for a population of 506 and 326 Millions, respectively. Vendors are fighting hard for a market that is very competitive, serviced by a lot of vendors. What you really want, as a WebRTC vendor, are countries with huge population, that enjoy a huge spending power, and great internet connectivity. So the question really is, where to turn to for growth. Northern Asia, and in some part, Australia / NZ, fit the bill, at first sight …

China is huge a market with 1.3 Billions inhabitant, and a GDP of 11M of Billions (USD), but it has is own regulations, and a very specific state of the internet which makes it a very special business and technical case that require specific investment to address. Not quite the organic growth you would be looking for.

India comes second in term of population, with 1.1 Billion, and big companies like Google have made no secret of their intend to tap on that to get a huge share of their next 1B users. However, the population statistics are masking the fact that India is not a fully homogeneous market, and that its infrastructures are not equally developed across the entire country. The best illustration of this is that Philippines, with 10 times less working age population, passed india as an outsourcing destination as soon as 2011, and has only comforted their advance ever since. Moreover the GDP per capita (the closest proxy to the average buying power of individual in a nation), is only 1.6k (USD) while the rest ouf south east asia (ASEAN) is at 4k in average,  china at 8k, Malaysia at 10k, South Korea and Japan around 30k.

Japan has a much lower population than india or china, 126M, but a very strong economy (4M GDP). To compare with india, it has 10 times less population for an economy twice bigger! It is also a very western business friendly and homogenous country (no, kansai-ben is not a real language, unless you’re a hardcore fan of the kinki-kids) .Moreover, the proximity with S. Korea, and the ease to find speakers fluent in both languages, allow many to treat the two markets as one (for an extra 48M inhabitant, 1.4M billions of USD economy). It makes it a perfect first extension.

The following extension is usually more difficult though. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which kicked in only recently, weights 630 Millions inhabitants, more than EU or North-America, for admittedly a much smaller GDP of 2.5M (of billions of USD), but still more than India’s. It represents the Cumulated GDP of Mexico and canada put together.

One of the biggest problem of ASEAN is the huge disparities between each nation member. While Indonesia statistics place it close to Mexico’s with almost 1M GDP,  it’s far ahead of the second group of countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore, in order) which each account for 0.3M. As I explain more in detail in my report, one can’t cover all those countries from a single office and with a single strategy. As Wavecell Job offers (see “sale”) or nexmo’s before them, illustrate, while you will likely have an HQ either in Hong-Kong or Singapore for linguistic, legal and tax reasons, you need to have local sales team in each country to be able to really handle business.


While the choice of Japan as a first big entry point in Asia makes a lot of sense, the announcement also states that “China, including TaiwanHong Kong and MacauSingaporeMalaysiaThailand and Australia” will be covered by the same agreement. It would be challenging, wasn’t it for the size and the footprint of ITOCHU. With more than 4 thousands employees and more than 10 offices worldwide, ITOCHU corporation has the shoulders to bring this deal to the next level. Its ICT and Financial Service division, specifically, has been providing RTC and VoiP solutions to many businesses, including call centers, and is the perfect vehicle for that business. After being a sales agent of CafeX solutions for Japan only, it made a strategic investment in CafeX in December last year, whose announcement contain an interesting analysis of webRTC business in japan and APAC. Last week-end announcement is just the continuation of that global deal.

It seems that it comes to complement previously announced Rakuten Communications collaboration deal, in an overall strategy where Rakuten would deal with the Japanese Market, and ITOCHU with the rest of APAC.


As expected, webrtc vendors are turning to Asia for growth. While the asian markets for webrtc are globally untapped, most vendors realize quickly that going in there alone is difficult, and require a real strategy. While some CPaaS like Nexmo, or Twilio had to do it anyway to some extend to have a good contact with the local Telecom Operators, setting up local partnerships and collaborations is one sensitive way of approaching the asian markets, especially for PaaS (that do not depend directly on telcos), and on-premises solutions, like CafeX.

Lies, damned lies, and #webrtc statistics!

Recurrently, people are arguing on different webrtc mailing lists or social sites. Some questions are still left open: which MCU/SFU is better, which PaaS is better, should one work on webRTC in Safari? in Edge? Usually some kind of statistics is being used. While it is well known that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to, I do not always see reason to argue. Indeed, most of the time people argue about different use cases that are not opposed to each other, or implicitly define different scopes that do not overlap. I thought it would be good to clarify things a little bit by presenting several trustable source of data for browser usage, webrtc support, and define a view usual use cases for illustration.
Continue reading

Webrtc in Safari Update – Q4 2016

Apple was represented by a dozen of employees at the W3C TPAC in September. The fact that it was held in sunny Lisbon late September might explain the surge in interest, in any case we were very happy to have them with us. I usually try to meet with the WebRTC team once a quarter, and we took this opportunity to go over the latest Q4 news that can be made public. Toward the end of the post, I will also give away some of my tricks to monitor public WebRTC activity in webkit.

Continue reading

Overview of WebRTC Media Servers

This is a translated, adapted version of an original post by NTT’s Iwase Yoshimasa available here, with agreement from the author. As the ecosystem move quickly, some updates were added in blue and in italic.

This post describes the current state (as of september 2016) of MCU and SFU media servers used in WebRTC solutions. I hope it will serve as a quick reference for those wanting to know more about the concepts and the available projects. The details of each product introduced here are not provided, but a link to each product is, so you can read further if you want. Moreover, we almost only mention stand alone media servers, and did not touch on webRTC CPaas or PaaS. 

Continue reading

JANUS webRTC media and application server

My attending W3C TPAC in Lisbon, portugal, this week signs the end of my european webrtc teams tour. This post will be the first one reflecting the meetings I had. Janus has always been an interesting project. Technically, the fact that it is written in C and very small makes it one of the best server for IoT (kurento or jitsi would be less suited). Its plug-in/extention architecture,  not only keep it even leaner, but also allows to very easily build different types of media server (MCU, SFU, …) or app server (SIP Gateway, …). The IETF leveraging them to replace webex for their meetings (thousands of attendees each) and slack for their infrastructure, not only validated their product but also the market, and business viability. The danger of course is to be ONLY influenced by what I read, or people I consult for, which admittedly is too small a subset to draw any reasonable conclusion from. So I decided to hear from them.

Continue reading

[rerun of 12/2015] Basis for comparison: (Web)RTC PaaS

Every month I received a certain number of newsletters from different companies. Some are really …, hum, …. entertaining with their claims. Today’s batch reminded me that one year ago almost, I published on linked in (only) some numbers for those who wanted to evaluate webRTC PaaS. It looks like it is still needed today. So here you go. [Updates and comments of the original text will be placed in italic and between braces.]

One of the most difficult thing nowadays is to read through some (web)RTC announcements. Just like everyone is claiming to be a visionary leader in LinkedIn, every companies in the space (and their moms) are “leader in the market”, “Best in their space”, “Last independent webRTC platform”, “with better technology and scalability than Twilio/Tokbox/AWS/God”. Right.

Continue reading

INTEL WebRTC Collaboration suite

Intel has come a long way since 2013/2014 with their collaboration Suite for WebRTC. Today they propose one of the most complete free solution, practically a PaaS-in-a-box:

  • web (+IE plugin), mobile and windows clients,
  • a complete infrastructure
    • Media server
      • both MCU and SFU modes,
      • multi-party and broadcast
    • SIP Gateway.

This post will provide some insight on what they propose, the evolution of their offer, and what’s coming next.

Continue reading

WebRTC Media Servers

Back in 2013, I did a full review, including benchmarks, of all the open source webRTC media servers. Defining use cases and corresponding tests and benchmarks was hard, and while I was happy with the results, which I presented a couple of times in conferences, the results are now grossly outdated. A year and a half ago, I tried to trigger a gathering of all the actors, as they all belong to IETF. It is very difficult for a potential user to know which project to use, and answers on the webrtc-discuss mailing list were confusing at best. We needed something more descriptive, easier to understand. I got traction from most of the players, but couldn’t make it happen. This year, hopefully, things will be different.

Continue reading