Why CoreMF
Build your product. Reuse the media engine.
Reuse connected RTC, audio/video processing and GPU production components while keeping application logic and deployment under your control.
Decide in three questions.
Detailed assessment worksheet ↗Check the API and plugin boundary, dependencies and platform.
Compare engineering, testing, maintenance, license and operations for the same workload.
Compare against your existing stack and its actual costs. Check current release limits ↗
Three adoption choices
Choose who owns each part of the work.
Compare the code, testing and operations your team would own with each approach.
| Decision | CoreMF SDK | In-house development | CoreMF + scoped integration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Existing RTC, plugin frame/sample access, CoreGL and native media components selected for the workflow. | Your current stack and selected media libraries, plus the components you develop. | Existing CoreMF components with defined customer-specific adaptation. |
| Engineering responsibility | Your team builds the application, integrates the SDK and owns deployment. | Your team builds and maintains the media integration and application. | The engagement delivers agreed integration work; handover and ongoing ownership are specified. |
| Control and dependencies | Public API and agreed source options; CoreMF and selected third-party/runtime dependencies. | Direct control over your implementation and the upstream dependencies you select. | Source/component scope, dependency footprint and modification rights defined for the project. |
| Costs to budget | License, integration, qualification, infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. | Engineering, upstream integration, qualification, infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. | Engineering engagement plus applicable SDK/deployment rights, qualification and continued operation. |
| Strong reason to select | The reusable component combination fits the product and reduces the work left to build. | The existing implementation already meets the need, or the required engine behavior is fundamental in-house IP. | The CoreMF foundation fits, but the team needs specialist integration or only a focused component subset. |
Make the economics comparable
Compare the same workload over the same period.
- Fix inputs, outputs, processing, platforms and acceptance criteria.
- Estimate implementation, integration, testing, maintenance and dependency-upgrade work for each option.
- Add license, contracted engineering, staffing, infrastructure and support costs.
- Validate output, latency, resource use and failure behavior on a representative pipeline.
Runtime benchmarks do not establish engineering savings. Record estimates, assumptions and actual effort in the buy/build worksheet.
Build with CoreMF
Evaluate against your baseline.
Bring your baseline, media requirements and acceptance criteria.