[cm3]

It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 it could have either destroyed YouTube (highly unlikely) or fixed the video codec situation.

[yaur]

Both of those companies have been around long enough to remember the hell caused by there being a bunch of competing codecs in the 90s before the two main bodies that make video standards agreed to go the same direction. Google is the new kid that wants them to try something they have already watch fail again.

[cm3]

If you want one standard for everybody it better not exclude innovators without deep pockets and require licensing fees to use the standard everybody's supposed to use. The world doesn't just consist of TV stations, video production workstations and iPhones or Samsung TVs all licensing H.26*. Participators in creating a technical standard must be compensated for the their work but if it's a standard for everyday use by everyone what are the arguments for requiring licensing fees?

[yaur]

Having a license pool incentives continued research into video compression and provides a less risky environment for all participants (this a problem that Google bought their way out of).

Overall the licensing structure and costs are reasonable IMO except that software decoders that are given away for free shouldn't incur licensing costs.

[threeseed]

You have it completely backwards there. It is Google that has the ulterior motive/financial gain in not adopting H.264/H.265. They are the only major player who has not adopted it. And if Google decided to force WebM in YouTube it would absolutely destroy it.

This whole weird misadventure Google has embarked on will be abandoned sometime soon. There simply is nothing to be gained from it.

[cm3]

Codec licensing costs are an impediment to innovation in the video space and another example of controlling the market and keeping out newcomers without deep pockets. If you had only two brands of paper that licensed the one paper+pen "technology" (H.26*) available and anyone with an alternative pen+paper combination that isn't out to make money only with licensing fees is kept out of the market - that's the situation we are in with video codecs. Regulatory bodies play a vital role but fail by sometimes overregulating and in this case ignoring abuse of power. The widespread myth spread by ISPs that want to invest once and milk the network as long as possible while maintaining it as little as possible is also the reason why we haven't managed to declare internet connectivity as just another utility like water and electricity. To think that those broadband companies got tax breaks and want tax breaks while searching for loopholes to prevent municipal fiber installations...

[ulfw]

Wow. Wait... so if someone does not support whatever Google wants, they are anti-competitive?