> They could have simply not bought WebM, saved $100 million, and they would not have the storage problem. Is it not the case that even using just h264, Youtub

> They could have simply not bought WebM, saved $100 million, and they would not have the storage problem. Is it not the case that even using just h264, Youtube currently has to store several encodings using different codec profiles in order to target different devices, including low power ones like the iPhone? See my reply to macrael for why this might not be the case with WebM: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2098874 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2098874