If the MPEG-LA decides to make people pay royalties for encoding, content producers can decide to use WebM. I'm just saying that all browser should support Web

If the MPEG-LA decides to make people pay royalties for encoding, content producers can decide to use WebM. I'm just saying that all browser should support WebM and it is probably right to support is as the open video format for the web. But there is no point in removing H264 support for browsers, which is not incompatible with supporting WebM. It's not like Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD. I think this is not ideological, but strategic. They are leveraging the non-negligible Chrome market share to force content producers to support WebM. Even if the format is open, they have quite a few months of strategic advance wrt competitors (Apple?) in designing the hardware support for mobile devices. I'd say that even if Apple decides to support WebM in hardware, it wouldn't be ready before a couple of generations (1.5-2 years?) That's why comments like > Google shows once more that they are visionary company with long-term outlook and an outlook on business that allows them to invest in things that benefit everybody and not just them. look to me naive and "Google fanboy"ist