Codec wars are pretty old though, just look at discussions of Ogg vs MP3. My hope is that a bit of traction out there on it and it will establish itself by virtue of its lack of royalties.
Give us all a break. I am just as 'invested' in this as anyone else is.
I am critical of VP8 because I believe in companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft etc working together to define standards in the common interest of the consumer. Google's entire behaviour with VP8/H.264 as well as their FRAND abuse goes entirely against this.
Royalty-free standards are even better. Given the state of the video codec world at the time of Google's On2 acquisition, purchasing a codec that was explicitly designed to avoid MPEG-LA patents seems like the only viable path they could have taken to a royalty-free codec for the web. And remaining royalty free is essential to the very concept of the World Wide Web.
Developing a new royalty-free standard would only invite participants to try to include as many encumbered concepts as possible to derail the royalty-free aspect, or to delay ratification and implementation for as long as possible to preserve the revenue from their royalty-bearing codecs.
Having a standard that is designed by committee should not be an end in itself, but only a means to an end, and if other means are more expedient, then the other means should be used.
Exactly. Having been involved in the H264 process (as well as On2/VPx), I saw first-hand how the big guys abused the process at every turn. Their attitude was not "we're doing this for everyone", but rather, "cool, with this patent pool thing we can collude on pricing and it's totally legal!"
Then they spent the rest of the time jockeying to get their allies into position to ratify their precious patent-protected IP into the standard so they could reap the royalties and remain in a position of control.
To their credit, the people who actually ran the standards process attempted to thwart this behavior (they even tried to produce a "royalty free baseline"), but the powers that be were just too entrenched and committed to their predatory ways for it to succeed.
Like most collectivists, you fail to recognize that the power to lead collective action is almost uniformly commandeered by special interests, with the supposed collective benefits corrupted to benefit only those with the power to make decisions "for the rest of us".
What works in the real world is free agents doing business with each other on fair terms, with transparency, oversight, and no fingers on the scale.
On2 developed a competitive codec, taking pains to avoid MPEG patents. Google acquired that technology. In a fair market, VPx and H264 could battle it out and the best value proposition would win. Even if H264 is marginally better from a technical perspective in some cases, VPx has the advantage of being free of licensing restrictions and royalties.
But instead of letting this play out fairly in a free market, the MPEG dudes decided to play rough. They used their antitrust get-out-of-jail card for the exact opposite reason it exists -- to attempt to intimidate the market with FUD, and squash potential competition before it gained a foothold.
Unfortunately for them, in the new order Google just has more money, lawyers, and smarts than the old guard, so they won the battle. But this is not the way things should have to go -- the market should be free and open. State-sponsored "standards" simply stifle innovation and provide lock-in for the power players lucky enough to have a place at the table early on.
Why don't you tell us all why you're so personally invested in this argument?
[0] http://www.hnsearch.com/search?q=VP8+taligent