Even if you beat libvpx in speed and/or quality, libvpx will probably be "good enough" for most people. Unlikely: a large percentage of the applications that l

Even if you beat libvpx in speed and/or quality, libvpx will probably be "good enough" for most people. Unlikely: a large percentage of the applications that license x264 are live-streaming apps of some sort (videoconferencing, broadcast, app streaming, etc) -- being slow is a deal-killer for these. But you are right that this does change things somewhat -- though I actually haven't thought too much about that. 5. They are using code that they have not yet publicly released. Likely false. According to my info so far, the tests were done using a daily autobuild from their own system (which, IIRC, builds from git). 7. They measure PSNR using a different tool, and the two tools have different measurements for some reason (I don't have enough expertise in this space to know if this is actually a possibility or not). There are two ways to measure PSNR: Overall/Global and Average. Both showed similar results here though, so that's unlikely to be the issues. 6. They made an honest mistake. Could be. If so, I hope they fix it. I toned down the original post, and in light of your comments, I've delayed making a blog post on the topic for at least a few days until I know exactly what's going on. Thanks for the advice.