Both WebM and h.264 are imperfect solutions for the same problem. WebM has a image quality issue h.264 has not, but this can be corrected, as WebM can be impro

Both WebM and h.264 are imperfect solutions for the same problem. WebM has a image quality issue h.264 has not, but this can be corrected, as WebM can be improved over time. Certainly it can be improved over time, but the degree of improvement will be limited to features not covered by the hundreds of video-centric patents that comprise H.264 (assuming WebM isn't already violating any of those patents). Additionally, H.264 encoding technology can be improved over time. You'd be hard pressed to make any technical analysis that demonstrates WebM could ever improve enough to exceed H.264 and it's encoding improvements. The probable reality is that H.264 will always have a not insignificant quality lead over WebM. The problem h.264 has - being encumbered by patents you can borrow for free only for a limited time - will not be corrected. If we decide to store all our video in h.264 we risk being unable to play it a couple years from now without paying the MPEG-LA for its licenses. That's not an accurate summation of the H.264 license. H.264 delivered for free on the web will always remain free. H.264 delivered at cost to the viewer is currently free. For more details on the cost H.264 licensing, refer to this: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/by-dropping-h264-is-google-avoiding-a-trap-or-walking-into-one/2867 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/by-dropping-h264-is-google-av... So perhaps neither WebM nor H.264 are perfect ... but using the two points made to highlight the imperfections of each shows that perhaps H.264 isn't as imperfect as some would make it seem.