"But let's also be honest and say that Flash is the reason we all have fast, reliable, ubiquitous online video today. It's the reason that YouTube took off & vi

"But let's also be honest and say that Flash is the reason we all have fast, reliable, ubiquitous online video today. It's the reason that YouTube took off & video consumption exploded four years ago. It's the reason we have Hulu, Vimeo, and all the rest. [...] Macromedia was the only company that delivered truly ubiquitous (99% penetration) video playback." "truly ubiquitous": http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/vers... I don't know where to find other (read: relevant) statistics on this topic, so if anyone else does, that'd be great to have here. Because you can't damn well claim Flash's ubiquity to be the reason for all these several-years-old occurrences and then cite penetration statistics from 2009 as your evidence. In fact, in the absence of telling data, I'm inclined to believe YouTube taking off is more the reason for Flash's ubiquity than the other way around. But that's just a hunch-- a hunch perhaps supported by this later snippet: "[M]ore than three quarters of online video now streams in Flash formats (up from 25% three years ago)." Additionally, it's simply illogical to claim that "[w]ithout [Flash], we'd all still be bumbling along" when the only evidence provided for said claim is ubiquity, regardless of whether Flash was anywhere near as ubiquitous as Nack leads his readers to believe. Hypothetical scenario: Flash never existed. Now what? No other video standard would've achieved ubiquity in its place? Why is that conclusion so certainly the case? We're not talking about static technologies with substantive and unalterable differences between them. We're talking about dynamic technologies capable of changing and improving any measure of quality relatively quickly, if need be. What am I to believe next? That if the English had never survived the Middle Ages (let's say the would-be King Arthur had a sore arm one fateful day) then the world today, with absolute certainty, would not have a global language/lingua franca at all? French, Spanish, Chinese, et al. could never have done it in time for me to sit on my computer in the 21st century? That we'd all "still be bumbling along"? C'mon, Nack.