Re: [rtcweb] Stephan Wenger's choices

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 28/12/2013 6:17 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> We can joke about absurdities, but I'm completely serious about the real
>> benefits that a low-complexity, tiny-footprint, completely accessible
>> codec would have as the MTI.
> Yes, I realize you're serious. But it turns out that there is a difference
> between seriously believing something and actually convincing
> people.
>
> So far you have yet to convince me, at least, that it's better
> for users to have an MTI bad codec on every device than to have
> an MTI good codec on most devices and no video on really low-end
> devices.
Eric,

Here is what I don't get: On the one hand we're being told that we 
should choose H.264 as MTI because it's supported by most legacy or 
resource-constrained/mobile devices; on the other hand, the majority of 
those same devices don't support H.264 encoding in hardware (and never 
will). It just so happens that we can deploy WebRTC on legacy devices 
using an older codec, such as H.261, but that's being rejected as too old.

I'm hearing contradictory messages here. What is our top priority? 
Supporting legacy devices, or video quality? Because it doesn't seem 
like you can have both.

What am I missing here?

Gili