The problem with VP8 it turns out is that it's not actually very good. I suppose that's only the first problem, one of usability. It's slower and doesn't look as good as H.264. It's not even as good as the open source x264 encoder apparently.
The patent issue is a HUGE problem and overshadows everything else. The lack of immunity will stop a lot of people cold in their tracks. And if Google believed for one second this was patent free, it's something they should stand behind. At least one expert believes it's full of H.264 rip-offs however, so it's like adding an active minefield to your project.
Mozilla is all over it with double-talk. Previously they defended Theora as being close to H.264 for most people, now they claim VP8 is close to or equal to H.264 and much better than Theora. Hmm, can't have it both ways.
This is the take of one of the developers behind x264:
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377Seems like a no-brainer. For a consumer, there's no current support in any commercial software or hardware for VP8. Nothing you buy/use is going to spit out VP8. Lots of things spit out H.264. H.264 files are smaller and look better - plus you don't have to blow any time converting to an obscure format from one that's already an industry-wide standard.
For the professional or commercial user, H.264 is faster and higher quality plus either free (non-commercial) or you know the costs up front. With VP8 you have something slower and of lesser quality while opening yourself up for litigation and fees that may equal or eclipse H.264 licensing.
The wrench in the whole thing is Google's own support of VP8 through YouTube and other avenues. We'll see how that shakes things up. Patent holders in H.264 would likely wait until there's some mass behind VP8 before bringing out the guns - and filling up their purses.