>I'd rather ask why Google didn't make vp8 defacto on youtube instead of adopting h.264, let the Apple mobile devices flounder without support, and push really hard on Android manufacturers to hardware accelerate vp8 (or 9 now).
Google makes money on ads. Including on YouTube.
Now, Android doesn't make Google any money. It's a long term bet to have a foot on the mobile space. Including the Motorola acquisition --and giving it for free--, Google has most likely LOST money on Android thus far.
Plus, Android doesn't have much presence in the mobile web. Despite outnumbering iOS devices, Android devices produce far less mobile web visits. Probably because lots of them are sold to the lowest consumer tier, free with a contract, that is, to people that don't care about the "mobile web" thing much at all.
So, Google pushing VP8 on YouTube / mobile would just serve to cut Google from the mobile advertising pie, which is largely iOS.
And it's not like Apple, if pushed, couldn't have added some basic flash player capability, even if only for video support. Adobe, for one, would have jumped at the chance to give it to iOS.
Google makes money on ads. Including on YouTube.
Now, Android doesn't make Google any money. It's a long term bet to have a foot on the mobile space. Including the Motorola acquisition --and giving it for free--, Google has most likely LOST money on Android thus far.
Plus, Android doesn't have much presence in the mobile web. Despite outnumbering iOS devices, Android devices produce far less mobile web visits. Probably because lots of them are sold to the lowest consumer tier, free with a contract, that is, to people that don't care about the "mobile web" thing much at all.
So, Google pushing VP8 on YouTube / mobile would just serve to cut Google from the mobile advertising pie, which is largely iOS.
And it's not like Apple, if pushed, couldn't have added some basic flash player capability, even if only for video support. Adobe, for one, would have jumped at the chance to give it to iOS.