Achtung! dieser Artikel wurde nicht von einem Muttersprachler geschrieben. Bitte das bei Kritik berücksichtigen. Ich (bed) habe nur die rudimentäre Grammatik und Syntax angepasst.
Welcher Container ist besser OGG oder MKV?
Diese Frage interessierte mich selbst,
so stellte ich die Frage den Entwicklern. Eine kurze Antwort ist: OGG ist einfach
und gut für mobile oder Embeded Geräte. MKV ist umfangreich –
dies wegen auch gut 
Das ist auch ein Grund warum WebM überhaupt
existiert. Man hat die ganze Funktionalität abgeschnitten um es
wieder mobil zu machen.
Der feinere Unterschied ist: Die Art und Weise wie ein Videostream synchronisiert wird (Editor:ich hoffe, das ist technisch korrekt?). OGG nutzt FPS (Frames per second) Parameter. MKV und WebM nutzen Timestamps. Das heißt für OGG, wenn man eine Videoquelle mit wechselnden Framerates hat, kommt es zu einer technischen Herausforderung.
Hier sind ein paar der Antworten die ich bekam:
* Ogg has a lesser semantic burden, so that e.g. embedded
implementations which necessarily have to be minimal are easier and
cheaper to build; this of course means that a conforming Ogg
implementation might not be as feature-rich as a Matroska one
* Ogg is a pure streaming protocol, whereas, IMO, Matroska tries to go a
bit beyond that; so I'd argue Ogg is a bit better at "doing just one
thing and doing it well"; I'd say it's "cleaner"
* Ogg goes more with the traditional single-use paradigm than Matroska,
with its EBML and whatnot; it is still extensible in the IETF sense of
the word, but more centralized control is effected; IMO that is a good
thing -- or would you really like such an infrastructure oriented
protocol to be extended willy-nilly? (think what would happen if
people did that to IP? 
* OTOH, the centralized decision process of Xiph/Ogg is much more open
than Matroska's
* Because it's a stream protocol, Ogg decidedly isn't fit for
bit-for-bit file storage; I tend to dislike the idea that an Ogg
stream is stored as an Ogg file upon transmission
* For one reason or another -- which I'd really like somebody to
research and document -- there are huge differences in the kind of
content that is being disseminated using the two formats; I'm
reasonably sure at least part of the difference has to have something
to do with the specific needs of the communities using the protocols,
instead of just adoption discrepancies
* There might just be a bit more coupling between the multiplexing and
codec design within Ogg than there is with Matroska, which then of
course means better layer separation/win for the latter; from what is
seen in the wild Matroska is certainly used to multiplex a far wider
set of codecs and whatnot than Ogg; but then Xiph/Ogg has its open
source political aspirations as well, which severely limit what
is/can be offered
* As a more centralized and "committee-bound" thingy, Matroska was much
more tighly engineered at its inception than Ogg, and it also seems
a bit better geared to handle today's
piece-of-media-over-stream-of-media preferences; I'm thinking this
could explain much of its current market value
