The "what" being that, assuming the ideal is a move away from proprietary technologies like Flash, supporting WebM alone in the current environment is likely to have the opposite effect (and thus hurt web open standards, at least in the short to medium term).

I too liked Chrome's support of both WebM and H.264. Theirs is a disappointing move.

When the world gets into H.264 there's no way back but waiting for 20 years for patents to expire.

This was the last chance to at least try to keep the web video both open and free. It's a far shot, but it's at least a try. Before this move, the game seemed beyond lost, now it is only probably lost.

Flash will support WebM too, Skype is using it, so there are some chances. It's a very long way off, but now WebM has a fighting chance.

Too late. Seriously. The world got into H.264. We're here. It's it. What is WebM's fighting chance? Did you read the article? Do you have any counter points to Gruber's thesis? The web will continue to use H.264 and all Google is doing is ensuring that Chrome users (myself included) just get H.264 video in a flash wrapper. If we get WebM through Google/YouTube then great, but nobody else is going to bother serving it to us... why would they?

Only something incontestably better than h.264 will replace it. The consumer electronics industry doesn't waste resources going sideways, only forward.

As for your last statement: no. My bet is Flash gets WebM support natively next as part of a bargain between Adobe and Google. And that Android phones get WebM hardware decoders forced down upon them.

For Apple, they took a stance and now they risk Firewire/USB again.

adobe announced that they would add vp8 to flash months ago. as for a "bargain"...what would that even consist of? you can use and re-implement vp8 to your hearts content today without payng anyone.