Not just the content creators, but also IPTV providers which want a high performance codec with very few visual quality losses...
ATM, VP8 doesn't have hardware decoders that support it, so, without using a high-end CPU (for instance, if I play a WebM/VP8 full HD video (1080p) on Youtube, my core2duo CPU goes to above 50% (which is about 100% CPU in a single-threaded app) and videos stutter quite a lot) you're out of luck...
Furthermore, its quality is no better than H264 baseline, whereas in IPTV video we prefer to use H264 because of its portability and hardware compatibility.
Its not a duplication of resources this google's decision, its what we can call hipocrisy, by allowing third-party plugins to live more time and giving us more bugs and security exploits... :bad:
They fund the content creators and own the distribution rights. They don't actually create anything, just like music studios don't.
But you're right, you won't change their mind, just like you won't change the organized crime's position on protection money.
If you're a SINGLE HOME USER, you can use the H264 codec FREE-OF-CHARGE to encode your OWN videos, but, IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, like Google, you have to PAY royalities in the future, so, that is most probably the main reason why Google is dropping H264 support from Chrome (I don't know it, I'm not a Chromium/Chrome developer)... (The other one is hipocrisy... )
Besides, you are using flash (aren't you?) and flash still supports H.264. This battle isn't about current events - it's about the future viability of the open web. The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties, hence H.264 is completely unsuitable.