Can you imagine if Netscape had managed to stifle free alternative implementations (not simply alternatives; free alternatives). I don't think anyone could refu

Can you imagine if Netscape had managed to stifle free alternative implementations (not simply alternatives; free alternatives). I don't think anyone could refute the idea that the world would be a much better place right now if Microsoft hadn't crushed the market for web browsers and let it lay fallow for six years. (I'm not a Microsoft hater, but no changes to one of the most important pieces of technology in the history of humanity for years? Fuck everything about that!) Macromedia/Adobe's closed nature should be looked upon as a strategic necessity. (I'm aware of the fact that the SWF file specification is open, and that Adobe has made significant contributions to OS JS [I've personally downloaded and browsed their SpiderMonkey engine]. I feel it's likely that they could have possibly held back key implementation details to prevent Microsoft or another party from creating their own version of the Flash player. I don't know if anyone outside Adobe could say for sure how earnest they are about openness in the player.) Openness is a great thing, and crucially important -- I believe our future depends on it. I also believe there's room for some non-threatening technologies that are unencumbered by standards bodies who can innovate quickly. Maybe Flash Player is the guy that quietly amasses a ton of pieces on Kamchatka, convincing everyone they're incapable of taking over the world, and then blam -- blows everyone else away. But I really doubt it. Let's not forget that Safari's implementation of Canvas was met with nerd-rage because it hotdogged around SVG. One party making something fucking awesome and then other parties adopting it is how progress gets made. In relative terms, if we're comparing apples to oranges, Flash pushed innovation far more quickly than the browsers have thus far. It might feel like no time at all that we've gotten <canvas>, <video>, and <audio> all rolled out, but it has ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element ), and they're still only partially implemented. Between the time IE6 rolled out in 2001, and IE7 rolled out in 2006, Flash added the following features: proper video (<video>), unicode support, pre-coded UI components, a vector drawing API (<canvas>), a second version of ActionScript, advanced typography (including custom fonts [@font]), filters, blend modes (damn -- not until HTML6), bitmap caching, sockets, alpha transparency in video, a third version of ActionScript, two giant/comprehensive code libraries, and many, many more features. It's probably not fair to say that Adobe ignored performance concerns. There's been steady improvements to Flash performance, and the shit that sets your processor on fire is usually due to an over-ambitious developer without enough optimization experience. I can guarantee you that you'll see the same kind of performance Hindenburgs with <canvas> if you haven't already ( see article... ). They're a gigantic company with a ton of money, so doubtless they could have done more. You raise an excellent point about VLC decoding H.264 without thrashing.