Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Florian Weimer <[e-mail]>]

* Stefan Slivinski:

> Alright fast forward, Chrome adds H.261 but continues to use VP8.
> IE uses H.261 and H.264, Safari uses H.261 and H.264 and Firefox
> does H.261, H.264 and VP8.  So far so good.  Chrome can talk using
> VP8 to Firefox, Safari can talk H.264 to IE, Firefox can either
> H.264 or VP8 to everyone.  As long as Chrome users don't try to call
> IE or Safari, we're in good shape, otherwise we need to transcode
> using some undefined cloud based transcoder service or just use
> H.261.

Or use a WebRTC implementation which is written in Actionscript and
thus has access to Chrome's existing H.264 support:

<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-media-server/articles/encoding-live-video-h264.html>

I don't think availability of licensed H.264 implementations is a
problem.  It's just that the MPEG LA licensing conditions date back to
the early 2000s and it's totally unclear how they'll translate to
WebRTC application developers and commercial end users.  (If you don't
believe me, go and read Adobe's Flash Player 11 licensing agreement.)