> On the one hand you have Flash, which has been around for ages and you can't just take it out without breaking a lot of the web. Google does not need to bake

> On the one hand you have Flash, which has been around for ages and you can't just take it out without breaking a lot of the web. Google does not need to bake Flash into Chrome. Somehow browsers have survived a decade without the need. Google's stance is bullshit corporate strategy. You bending over backwards to justify it is just comical. > If you couldn't run flash at all on a Mac, ever, it would be disastrous. For Adobe. It's not going to affect anyone's purchase of a Macbook just as it didn't affect anyone's purchase of an iPad. > H.264 on the other hand is a brand new technology Wrong. H.264 has been around for 7 years. It has hardware decoders in nearly every mobile device. It encodes 2/3 (and probably more now) of the web's video. It's used by almost every single major content provider. It is WebM that is the new technology. Released 8 months ago to be precise. No hardware support yet (sorry, releasing VHDL designs doesn't count), almost zero content support, etc, etc. This isn't even close. > there is still time to make the right move before we end up in the same position as we are with Flash today: everyone wanting it gone but it not being easy to remove it Except no one wants H.264 gone. It's a high quality standard supported by devices everywhere. > (similar to the GIF situation as well) The GIF situation turned out fine. Thanks for the great counterexample to your logic.