That's because it's prohibitively expensive and negates the possibility of its inclusion in free products. At least, according to the blog post.

Older codec were not prohibitively expensive otherwise the proliferation of video products using patented codecs would not exist.

His complaint against H.265 will likely be fixed, and then it too will catch on, just as H.264 did, despite these same types of complaints against it.

> Older codec were not prohibitively expensive otherwise the proliferation of video products using patented codecs would not exist.

Because audio and movie pirates don't care what codecs they use, and VLC has supported pretty much everything you throw at it, patents be damned.

What do you think most early iPod adopters filled the disks with? Surely no legally bought music, lol.

There are many more products besides the few that skirt the law.

>What do you think most early iPod adopters filled the disks with?

The first iPods shipped with decoders for several patented codecs, including mp3.

This supports my claim that the codecs were not prohibitively expensive to make gadgets that include royalty payments to codec patent holders.

Apple refused to release QuickTime 6 until the MPEG-LA licensing for MPEG-4 was changed. This supports the claim that codec licensing has always been a contentious area.

I agree it has always been contentious. I disagree that it was "prohibitively expensive".

Well Apple thought it would kill the market so I guess we can all decide who to believe.