[threeseed]

Google could support H.264 or H.265.

The only reason they don't is because they want to push their format.

[untog]

I wouldn't say it's the only reason. H264/5 are not royalty-free codecs. YouTube is a powerful tool Google can use to push a royalty-free codec, much like Apple used the iPhone to push people off Flash. It's one of few areas I agree with Google being heavy handed.

[stephenr]

What, over and above the H.264 licensing that covers them for 1080p content?

It’s google doing what google always does: pushing a google controlled thing to become a “standard”.

[untog]

It's an open source, royalty free codec. I'd much rather use that than one owned and licensed by a private organisation, no matter whether Google develops it or not.

[stephenr]

It’s still patent encumbered, and if you happen to sue Google, because they do something shitty, you lose your patent grant.

[untog]

How does that make H264 preferable?

[stephenr]

It's not operated by a company with a penchant for abusing its 800 pound gorilla status?

[tpush]

Apple's MacBooks also got VP9 hardware decode support since several years, Apple could just enable it on the software side.

But they don't, so Safari users have to suffer.

[xnyan]

Is it unreasonable of Google not to want to use a royalty free codec that's controlled by the MPAA?

[umanwizard]

They could, but they don’t, so what is your point? It still means that watching YouTube on the Mac device in question is a crappy experience.