> Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too. I can only repeat myself: "Google creates dedicated cust

> Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too. I can only repeat myself: "Google creates dedicated custom proprietary processors which can process VP9 at roughly the same speed as a 20-year-old codec". How is this a win for anyone but Google (who is already eyeing to replace VP9 with AV1)? "The rest of us" are very unlikely to run Google's custom chips. "The rest of us" are much more likely to run this in software, for which, to quote the comment I was originally replying to, "without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264". Note: I'm not questioning the codec itself. I'm questioning the reasoning declaring this "a big win for the open format(s)".