<p>I don't believe Chris was speaking in any official capacity for YT or Google any more than I am. I think it is inappropriate to conflate his opinion of the matter with Google's. I have not seen _any_ official statement from Google regarding codec quality.</p>
<p>As an aside, I think taking the available recent public comparisons as "definitive proof" that Theora is (or is not!) "comparable" to H.264 is inappropriate (and goes further than the Theora developers have). Codec comparison is tricky and broad, and a definitive comparison (which I have not performed) would require a large variety of types/quality of input, compressed with many different option choices, and compared on both subjective and objective criteria. It also would include coverage of issues like how much buffer is needed to ensure continuous play, whether the quality can be dynamically degraded, storage space and CPU usage required on th encoding side, device support (current and projected), etc.</p>
<p>Or, to simplify, you're oversimplifying in your declarations that one codec is as good as another.</p>
<p>PK</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Jul 1, 2009 9:55 AM, "David Gerard" <<a href="mailto:dgerard@gmail.com">dgerard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>2009/7/1 Ian Fette ($B%$%"%s%U%'%C%F%#(B) <<a href="mailto:ifette@google.com">ifette@google.com</a>>:<br>
<p><font color="#500050">
> all of Google to suddenly release all of its information that has legitimate
> business reasons f...</font></p>I think it is reasonable to expect Google to address their statements<br>
of reasons being demonstrated false, however. They have notably failed<br>
to do so. Is Chris DiBona still reading? "Oh sorry, I was completely<br>
wrong" or "you're wrong and here's why" would go a long way to restore<br>
any trust in Google on this matter.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
- d.<br>
</font></blockquote></p>