Not fools. But companies. They get license fees for H.264. That's all management will need to know. They will tell us how there is no hardware acceleration and

Not fools. But companies. They get license fees for H.264. That's all management will need to know. They will tell us how there is no hardware acceleration and how H.264 has superior quality, when in reality they only want the money. The goal is that the defacto standard for web video becomes H.264. Imagine the income: When H.264 replaces all flash videos, they can leech money out of every device that plays those and everyone that makes those. That's PCs, tablets, phones, TVs and much more which equals a large amount of money. That's why i said, it's a shame that there was no decision for one video codec in HTML5. They (the w3c/whatwg) should've went with "screw you all, the video codec is ogg(or webm). If your browsers don't support it they are not HTML5 compliant." Instead they went with "ok, fine. Everyone can do whatever he wants", willingly accepting that the bigger companies will go for the money decision and lock-out of competition. IE is still big enough to make the situation really bad. MS will go the way of supporting other codecs through the windows API. But those codecs need to be installed, degrading them to 2nd class citizens and big video publishers will have to go the route of H.264 to not scare customers away with installing some non-default codec. The irony: In the end, the better choice will be to atleast support flash videos, because flash is available almost everywhere, whereas the alternative is a much more fragmented HTML5 standard. In the end, this decision may have disrupted the goal to replace flash video with HTML5.