I did that with both Edge and Opera but failed with Firefox, and it’s why I think the presence or absence of a particular codec isn’t the determining factor for whether Web View will play video from a particular Cam. If it was, then I wouldn’t expect telling a non-Chrome Chromium-based browser to misrepresent itself and send the Chrome user agent string to actually work. Something else is going on, and I think at least part of that is Web Portal servers parsing the User-Agent string and using that to shape the user experience, which I’ve tried to suggest to Wyze that they shouldn’t do, at least in part because MDN seems to indicate that UA sniffing is a bad idea for determining how a server is going to present information to a given browser.
I’m not a developer, but whenever I see things like this happening (and I know I’ve said this before) it tends to remind me of the days when some Web sites were broken unless they were accessed with Internet Explorer because they were written with certain nonstandard markup and ActiveX dependencies, and that has never sat well with me. I do understand why things like that were done at that time, particularly for certain business use cases, but I think Web standards have advanced to the point now where giving users browser choice and adhering to open standards—especially with regard to accessibility—should be the norm, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for consumers of a company with a stated goal of being friends with users to expect to be able to use whatever (modern, mainstream, standards-compliant) browsers they choose and access their content. Forcing the use of a specific browser seems narrow-minded and unfriendly.