[still_grokking]

Besides that WebRTC is a tire fire¹ on any browser, why don't you just use VP8?

Should be available everywhere.

Enabling anything with "Cisco" in its name is out of scope for many (and anyway not available on Google's mobile OS).

___

¹ All implementations have severe quirks and some (like Safari) outright showstopper bugs. BTDT

[ambyjkl]

The problem with VP8 is it's almost never hardware accelerated, neither on the encoding nor on the decoding side, so it's undesirable. Also, the software encoder x264 is quite far ahead of libvpx vp8 in terms of the encoding cost vs bitrate vs quality tradeoffs in our testing. We really hope AV1 solves all these issues once and for all in the years to come.

[still_grokking]

I guess you will need to make some compromises to make this work reliably.

My personal experience with WebRTC was: "One can be glad if one gets anything working at all across different environments". 0 stars, would not touch again (or only with a very very long pole; everybody has his price… ;-)).

The other thing that came to my mind is: Why do all that on the server? Seems costly.

One could build a "browser in browser", and share that (partly) P2P through the WebRTC screen-sharing feature. The "browser in browser" would be needed to be able to make that thing interactive as the screen-sharing feature transmits only a video. You would need to capture mouse and keyboard on the webpage within the "virtual browser" (and transmit it though an additional WebRTC stream). Capturing the inputs outside of the browser is not possible afik with WebRTC.