Originally Posted by Gatorguy
"On the other hand, when compared to the H.265/MPEG-HEVC reference encoder implementation, the VP9 encoding times are lower by a factor of 7.35, on average."
You conveniently omitted the fact that it was a software implementation of H.265.
The biggest advantage of h.265 is that it is quite similar to h.264 from hardware acceleration perspective. Chips that support h.264 hardware decoding can be extended to support h.265 in as little as a week development time.
VP9 on the other hand is a much dicier issue. Even VP8 never had any support in hardware, so it is a from-scratch problem.
Don't under-estimate the advantage H.265 has from just this one reason. It is a no brainer for any chip to support h.265 in hardware.
In fact Google's licensing agreement with MPEG-LA is quite meaningless - because until there is widespread hardware support for VP8 and VP9, it is just free money for MPEG-LA.
In its efforts to undermine others IP, Google has made several missteps that have actually costed it way more than it would have, if they just operated clean and took a license.
The Motorola acquisition is one, and this MPEG-LA license is another.