> If the context is purely WebRTC in the browser, then VP8 will do just as well as H.264
If this was a purely technical decision, you'd be absolutely right.
There are numerous players who Will Not implement VP8/WebRTC whether IETF says it's MTI or not. "Why?" is subject I could write about full time for the next year. Of course, the IETF is highly unlikely to declare anything MTI without consensus.
> My point is that without MPEG audio neither of those points hold.
I assume you mean AAC. In WebRTC, audio transcoding (or coding in software) isn't a backbreaker. Video would be. For the video tag, Mozilla fully intends to find a way to ship AAC.
Re: This is about the WebRTC standard
Date: 2013-10-31 05:11 am (UTC)If this was a purely technical decision, you'd be absolutely right.
There are numerous players who Will Not implement VP8/WebRTC whether IETF says it's MTI or not. "Why?" is subject I could write about full time for the next year. Of course, the IETF is highly unlikely to declare anything MTI without consensus.
> My point is that without MPEG audio neither of those points hold.
I assume you mean AAC. In WebRTC, audio transcoding (or coding in software) isn't a backbreaker. Video would be. For the video tag, Mozilla fully intends to find a way to ship AAC.