Now another question for you, what do you prefer, to use a plug-in to view your web videos or having that support directly in your browser as a standard? (The answer is quite simple, I think)
Furthermore, Flash has only acceleration with a "semi-proprietary" video implementation (VDPAU), which only works for a limited group of users (nVidia proprietary driver users).
Personally, what Google wants to do with Chrome is not a very good decision, because it will make some "semi-useless" plugins (Flash) live longer...
Why don't you brief it for us? Throwing a link with a lot of them words without providing a clue about what your point is doesn't make things very easy.
The rest will be converted in due time. These videos aren't available as HTML5 H.264, either, they require flash anyway.Yes, I use Adobe Flash, not because I like it, but because Youtube still forces me to use it. (most sites I visit don't need flash for other things than displaying ads, which I block with Adblock, OC) Try for instance, play any music video from VEVO or other content provider... Or even simpler, try to play any content from (most) youtube "channels". Are they converted to WebM? I don't think so!
2. All previous patent claims have been invalidated
3. All current patent claims are likely to be invalidated (check wikipedia for the details)
4. W3C helps in investigating and invalidating these patent claims
So, no, the H.264 situation is completely different to JPEG. Read this for more details on W3C's patent policy: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
H.264 patents will expire too. Will you in a few years come back here and say "H.264 patents expired" like you just did with JPEG? No, don't think so. JPEG was just as petent encumbered back them as H.264 is now. So clearly "The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties" is not true.
And don't forget GIF too...