4 ms·

>Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. This is short term thinking. Flash isn't going away

>Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. This is short term thinking. Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway; why should we kneecap the future of HTML5 <video> before it gets off the ground because it might temporarily extend the life of an already entrenched format? Because the way I see it, there's zero chance of replacing it when your alternative had nearly 20% of the market guaranteed to be segmented due to Mozilla's refusal to adopt H.264. Everybody would have kept using Flash+H.264 anyway.

cletus 16y ago
> Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway I disagree completely. One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. Some consider this a problem. I consider it a feature. For me personally, very few times is this frustrating and most of those are when sites use Flash-wrapped video with no HTML5 fallback, which is still relatively common (but decreasingly so). I wish I could use Chrome without Flash. But it's preinstalled, which I'm vehemently opposed to. What's worse, if you uninstall it almost every page bugs you about missing plugins. The only solution (which I use) is to use a Flashblock plugin, which is far from optimal (eg sites use a Flash overlay over the entire page to trigger all the Flash on the page). And for the record, I don't hate Flash because it's closed. I hate it because it's buggy, creates extra security vulnerabilities, is used for some quite nefarious practices (eg zombie cookies) and, in the modern era of HTML/JS, is basically not needed anymore (where it once was) for RIAs. > why should we kneecap the future of HTML5 <video> before it gets off the ground because it might temporarily extend the life of an already entrenched format? Because in real terms this move does absolutely nothing to the future of H.264. Want to watch H.264 in Chrome? You use Flash. So the net result is now I have to use Flash where before I didn't. > Mozilla's refusal to adopt H.264. Everybody would have kept using Flash+H.264 anyway. If Firefox users choose to use Flash (by choosing Firefox) then that's their choice. I also understand why Mozilla doesn't support H.264. Beyond the political arguments a license would be a huge slice of their revenues. So all this move does is force me, as a Chrome user, to use Flash, where before the browser supported the format of most relevance in the video market. Unlike Mozilla, who have valid financial reasons, Google already has a H.264 license so this move is purely philosophical/political. I object to being drafted into a war that I have no interest in and (imho) is both premature (for WebM as a format), too late (considering H.264 entrenchment to date) and unnecessary (given the cost of changing later and that the FUDed Armageddon scenarios are at best overblown and at worst disingenuous).
- technomancy 16y ago
  > One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. You know, they make real computers that don't support flash too.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Can you name a few? They may ship some without Flash player preinstalled, but that's very different from not supporting Flash in the way iDevices don't.
    - technomancy 16y ago
      Well, I suppose I meant "real computers that support the feature of not having Adobe Flash installed", but PPC Linux is one I've used that comes to mind. I'm sure there are ARM-powered ones for which that's also true.
- commandar 16y ago
  >I disagree completely. Then, frankly, you're not paying close enough attention. Video is only one part of why Flash is popular. One area that HTML5 isn't even close to replacing Flash is in webgames, and a big reason for that is something fundamental to HTML5: HTML5 behavior is at the mercy of the rendering and JavaScript engine the browser running it. Flash is the same everywhere. All these fancy HTML5 demos you see everywhere? They pretty much universally have "Runs Best on [Browser X]" somewhere on the page. We're partying like it's 1999 all over again. Like it our not, Flash is going to be around in the near-term regardless.

cletus 16y ago

> Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway I disagree completely. One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. Some consider this a problem. I consider it a feature. For me personally, very few times is this frustrating and most of those are when sites use Flash-wrapped video with no HTML5 fallback, which is still relatively common (but decreasingly so). I wish I could use Chrome without Flash. But it's preinstalled, which I'm vehemently opposed to. What's worse, if you uninstall it almost every page bugs you about missing plugins. The only solution (which I use) is to use a Flashblock plugin, which is far from optimal (eg sites use a Flash overlay over the entire page to trigger all the Flash on the page). And for the record, I don't hate Flash because it's closed. I hate it because it's buggy, creates extra security vulnerabilities, is used for some quite nefarious practices (eg zombie cookies) and, in the modern era of HTML/JS, is basically not needed anymore (where it once was) for RIAs. > why should we kneecap the future of HTML5 <video> before it gets off the ground because it might temporarily extend the life of an already entrenched format? Because in real terms this move does absolutely nothing to the future of H.264. Want to watch H.264 in Chrome? You use Flash. So the net result is now I have to use Flash where before I didn't. > Mozilla's refusal to adopt H.264. Everybody would have kept using Flash+H.264 anyway. If Firefox users choose to use Flash (by choosing Firefox) then that's their choice. I also understand why Mozilla doesn't support H.264. Beyond the political arguments a license would be a huge slice of their revenues. So all this move does is force me, as a Chrome user, to use Flash, where before the browser supported the format of most relevance in the video market. Unlike Mozilla, who have valid financial reasons, Google already has a H.264 license so this move is purely philosophical/political. I object to being drafted into a war that I have no interest in and (imho) is both premature (for WebM as a format), too late (considering H.264 entrenchment to date) and unnecessary (given the cost of changing later and that the FUDed Armageddon scenarios are at best overblown and at worst disingenuous).

technomancy 16y ago
> One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. You know, they make real computers that don't support flash too.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Can you name a few? They may ship some without Flash player preinstalled, but that's very different from not supporting Flash in the way iDevices don't.
  - technomancy 16y ago
    Well, I suppose I meant "real computers that support the feature of not having Adobe Flash installed", but PPC Linux is one I've used that comes to mind. I'm sure there are ARM-powered ones for which that's also true.
commandar 16y ago
>I disagree completely. Then, frankly, you're not paying close enough attention. Video is only one part of why Flash is popular. One area that HTML5 isn't even close to replacing Flash is in webgames, and a big reason for that is something fundamental to HTML5: HTML5 behavior is at the mercy of the rendering and JavaScript engine the browser running it. Flash is the same everywhere. All these fancy HTML5 demos you see everywhere? They pretty much universally have "Runs Best on [Browser X]" somewhere on the page. We're partying like it's 1999 all over again. Like it our not, Flash is going to be around in the near-term regardless.