Really? You're guaranteeing zero chance of any event happening in IT until 2028? 17 years from now? In the same industry in which 17 years ago it was 1994 and Yahoo! wasn't called Yahoo! yet? In the same web space in which 6 years ago it was early 2005 and Youtube wasn't created yet?

May I borrow your crystal ball for a couple of minutes, please?

What makes you think I was talking about IT? There's more to video than the web.

I'm not sure, it might have the fact the entire 120+ comment thread is about video on the internet.

Sorry, should I have used VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray as examples instead? 35, 15, and 7 years ago respectively.

> Sorry, should I have used VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray as examples instead?

All examples of a technology being replaced (or partially replaced) by a better technology. WebM is not better than H.264 technologically. At best, it is almost as good as the lower H.264 profiles.

H.264 might conceivably be replaced as the dominant de facto video standard, but the replacement will not be WebM.

(BTW, I don't necessarily accept the 2028 number for when the relevant H.264 patents expire. That's when the last of the patents expire, but many of the patents are on the more recent enhancements to H.264. We only need the patents that cover the main profile to expire).

World is ripe with examples of technology being replaced by a challenger due to non-technical factors. The rise of MP3 and other lossy standards in favour of CDs is an obvious example. Early LCDs were not as good in terms of image quality as contemporary CRTs. It doesn't have to be better, it just has to be good enough technically and attractive for other reasons.

Is there something that makes you think all video won't be distributed via the web in 18 years time?

Via the Internet, but not necessarily in web browsers.

Possibly, but you have to wonder if TVs won't just end up reading TV optimised webpages rather than any other platform dominating in the long run.

Widespread support of WebM is likely to influence the chance of H.265 (the next one) either being royalty-free or at least having a royalty-free profile (and if not, then having a royalty-free competitor in the form of WebM version 2 or 3 in the early stages of its adoption). If Chrome uptake continues and Flash hurries up with their WebM support then a royalty-free subset of H.264 isn't entirely out the question, they've already softened their licensing once in response to competition.