> Compared to x264, it offers 15-20% better compression rates, but is ~5x slower.<p>This is interesting. H.265 and VP9 claim to use nearly 50% lower bitrate at the same quality level as H.264. Is this just a case of x264 being really well optimized that VP9 can only compress 20% better at the same quality?
The article leaves out what is my opinion the #1 reason to use H.264 - hardware decoding support. When I watch VP9 videos, the decoder runs in software on the cpu, draining the battery faster than H.264 which can be decoded in hardware with a separate decoding chip.
"We are hoping to test it with customers who are willing to pay for it, so we can build a business around it that can sustain its development and pay the rent etc."<p>Useless, moving on.