[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...