But codec comparison is a complicated subject. That link isn't H.264 vs. Theora, it's the particular H.264 encoder and particular settings used at that time by Youtube versus some similar bitrate Theora. It was prompted by an ill-informed comments by Google's Open Source dude who basically said that Youtube using Theora would melt the internet. The test only shows that Theora isn't a ridiculous choice for most web video, not that it's better or even as good as H.264 in general.
The idea is that open trumps closed over time. That's why we're using linux on our servers, and web technologies on top. These were (and are in some cases) toys compared with the competition, but got better by being open. It's only a matter of time till video codecs go the same way, supporting Theora will speed this up and we'll all benefit.
Another problem with Theora is hardware. There is a lot of hardware h264 encoders and decoders, allowing even cellphones to play HD h264. AFAIK there is absolute no Theora hardware currently.
The fact that Theora is competitive to the best proprietary codecs without any real funding is a huge success. Imagine what would happen if Google or Mozilla put a little effort behind that?
I'd distrust a comparison page hosted by an Apple employee for the same reason.
Also, maybe there are problems with theora, but then again, it's better to push it to more attention and fix the problems now than settle with a halfassed, non-sustainable solution and having the same discussion same time next year again. Seems to be very ineffective.
If you ask me, the h264 vs ogv versions were not that different at the same bit-rates (sure, maybe a little). My point is, I'd really like to see more actual data before we enter endless discussions and most of us don't know what's actually talked about.