[the8472]

VP9 spec has been finalized in 2013. So it's hardly unfinished. There may still be optimization potential for the encoder, but that would only speak for VP9 because it would only get better.

I think making a comparison without providing information how they obtained the results is much worse than the particular choice of codecs pitted against each other.

How much CPU time did they burn on each encode? Which settings were used? did they pick a frame at random or was cherrypicking involved? Or for that matter, which encoders did they use?

[Aissen]

Thanks for the additional points, you're correct. In addition to the non-scientific comparison (I'd expect better from a data-driven company like Google, but this is a marketing post), it also completely ignores HEVC, which is making headways in the wild.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "patent-free" VP9 is really nice, but I'm afraid it won't win if it's not better technically, especially if HEVC-patent pool prices are reasonable. Or maybe the only goal of Google is keeping patent licenses affordable by maintaining competition ?

[the8472]

> Or maybe the only goal of Google is keeping patent licenses affordable by maintaining competition ?

That certainly is plausible considering that webm/vp8 probably played a role in the MPEG LA extending its royalty-free exemptions internet broadcasting.[1]

It also provides google with some flexibility. They can (and do) use VPx now, might switch to HEVC in the future if it proves favorable and could switch back to VPx if some negotiations were to break down. Having options usually is a good thing in itself.

[1]: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme...