I'm an end-user, not a content provider. I don't give a rat's ass how my video is served, so long as it's pretty and fast. I want my video served in ≥720p with no buffering, as YouTube does currently. To this end, H.264 and WebM both work fine. In fact, so does flash. The only problem I have with flash is my laptop gets really hot and my battery drains rapidly every time I use it for extended periods.

Now, as the average end-user, I don't care about which browser supports which format. I either use IE or Safari because that's what came with my system, or Chrome/Firefox because that's what my friend who's good with computers recommended. I'm not likely to switch browsers because of video issues unless one just plain doesn't work.

So what does Google's dropping H.264 mean for the consumer and, by extension, adoption? Not much. The consumer will have to suffer through hot laptops and short battery life, and most won't know why. As Gruber points out, this will not encourage providers to support WebM, rather they'll simply keep serving up flash.

I don't see a winning path, here. From a consumer standpoint, I'm perfectly happy with H.264. From a web standpoint, I wish we had been having this discussion 3 years ago. H.264 seems to have won.