This is great, but how does it compare to H.265/HEVC? And any news on hardware decoding support? IMO, hardware support is the thing that really makes a difference from a consumer experience point of view (more than patents). It's what allows one to watch hours of video without the device getting hot or losing too much battery life.
This isn't a codec, it's a group to do patent analysis and development for a future codec.
WRT hardware support, I agree, but it won't be available in the early life of any new codec so it's important that it also works well in software (accelerated by SIMD and the like). The power difference is less than you might think, I have some preliminary measurements here: https://people.xiph.org/~tdaede/power/
Getting your codec supported in hardware is a tricky business, and as much as I've been a huge fan of the Daala initiative it was always going to be an insurmountable hurdle for Mozilla alone. IMO getting buy-in from Cisco and Youtube actually gives us a fighting chance at an actual royalty-free hardware-supported codec, which is why I'm so excited at this news.
This is aiming to be better than HEVC, because it won't be ready for a couple of years.
Assuming the groups listed actually back up their words with action, then hardware support will happen, basically every smart TV shipped already has VP9, so if Google's Youtube and Netflix and Amazon and Microsoft agree on a codec, it'll be in hardware (both in the sense of it being available, and in the sense of it being in every video device you can buy almost instantly.)
You're really putting the kart ahead of the horse when you ask questions such as that. First you need a great and highly competitive royalty-free codec. If it satisfies those requirements, the hardware decoding will come later.
