It can work with live streaming, you just need to add N keyframes of latency. With low-latency livestreaming keyframes are often close together anyways so adding say 4s of latency to get 4x encoding speed may be a good tradeoff.
Well, you don't add 4s of latency for 4x encoding speed though. You add 4s of latency for very marginal quality/efficiency improvement and significant encoder simplification, because the baseline is current frame-parallel encoders, not sequential encoders.
Plus, computers aren't quad cores any more, people with powerful streaming rigs probably have 8 or 16 cores; and key frames aren't every second. Suddenly you're in this hellish world where you have to balance latency, CPU utilization and encoding efficiency. 16 cores at a not-so-great 8 seconds of extra latency means terrible efficiency with a key frame every 0.5 second. 16 cores at good efficiency (say, 4 seconds between key frames) means terrible 64 second of extra latency.
You can pry vp8 out of my cold dead heands. I'm sorry, but if it takes more than 200ms including network latency it is too slow and video encoding is extremely CPU intensive so exploding your cloud bill is easy.
As I said, "may be". "Live" varies hugely with different use cases. Sporting events are often broadcast live with 10s of seconds of latency. But yes, if you are talking to a chat in real-time a few seconds can make a huge difference.
