3 ms·

Ah, but why then was Flash at the same kind of penetration #s prior to Flash supporting video (Flash 6)? Also, as I mentioned in my post not all video is meant

• weixiyen 16y ago
  > but why then was Flash at the same kind of penetration #s prior to Flash supporting video (Flash 6)? Back then, it was animation / interaction. Flash took advantage of a lack of standards across browsers as people were afraid to use javascript extensively. That time has passed. Right now, Flash lives because of video. The animation necessity has mostly been replaced. Assuming Google releases VP8, then your only argument left is that either: 1) Flash does video better (by a little) 2) Flash will find the next big thing to keep it alive. I do not find (1) a compelling argument to use Flash for video on most sites. In fact, the irony is that Flash may be kept alive for backwards browser compatibility. Until I know what (2) is - concrete examples please - I'm not willing to put any confidence just b/c Flash prevailed in the past. It is too small a sample size to put so much confidence in. *formatting