I don't understand why you and everyone else put so much focus on Google. AV1 is developed by the AOM, so why would Google be receptive to criticism of AV1? Why is it Google's responsibility to develop AV2? People keep directing (well-deserved) criticism of Google towards AV1/AOM, and in your comment you're directing criticism of AV1/AOM towards Google. Is Amazon, Cisco, Intel, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, ARM, Netflix, Samsung, Facebook, etc etc. truly so insignificant in this that AOM and Google are basically one and the same? Why would that huge group of absolutely enormous companies let themselves be bossed around by Google?
Regarding patents: my understanding is that AV1, like VP9 but unlike H.265, is unencumbered by patents, and you can use AV1 in products and FOSS projects without paying a license/royalties. Is this incorrect? If so, why has nobody updated Wikipedia? They still list AV1 as a royalty-free codec. If it truly is just as parent encumbered as H.265 then I agree with all the criticism, and our best bet is to stick with the very first version of H.264 (whose parents will expire next year) and JPEG. Because surely any patents which apply to AV1 also apply to its predecessors VP8 and VP9.
>Why would that huge group of absolutely enormous companies let themselves be bossed around by Google
Well first AV1, is practically 90% VP10, On2 hence Google. Second Those companies didn't contribute to AV1 development. They are merely supporting it.
>unencumbered by patents
unencumbered by patents is not patent free. Which is what confuse a lot of people. ( I guess, or I hope ). Google has lots of patents on AV1. Even when creators of the technique dont want it to be patented [1]. The AOM as group are there together so they dont sue each other on patents, and will sue ( cough defense ) anyone who challenge them on patents.
Regarding patents: my understanding is that AV1, like VP9 but unlike H.265, is unencumbered by patents, and you can use AV1 in products and FOSS projects without paying a license/royalties. Is this incorrect? If so, why has nobody updated Wikipedia? They still list AV1 as a royalty-free codec. If it truly is just as parent encumbered as H.265 then I agree with all the criticism, and our best bet is to stick with the very first version of H.264 (whose parents will expire next year) and JPEG. Because surely any patents which apply to AV1 also apply to its predecessors VP8 and VP9.