> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue. I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8

> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue. I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8. When I say WebM needed to be here 5 years ago, that's all I'm saying. No one company, standards body, org. is to blame. > There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding. Agreed. The individual user is not effected. The browser, and those who encode en masse for profit are exposed to potential pitfalls of the licensing. I'm not saying these royalties are debilitating or that the web will cripple into a video-less nothingness. What I am saying is: If we can replace something proprietary with something more open, that is a good thing. > Please stop spreading FUD. It really seems as though you're spreading FUD by ascertaining my opinions as allegiance to one camp or another. I'll admit I have a slight distaste for those who insist that H.264's penetration is reason alone to continue using it. Especially when I, up until a few years ago, was a lead Flash developer. Mainly due to Apple's insistence that Flash was the devil. I want you to see the ignorant, double-standard here. Flash and H.264 both have high penetration rates. Both are used extensively on the web and beyond. Yet only Flash must die? See how this is completely asinine? Instead of pointing a finger at Apple and declare them the enemy of my camp, I examined the situation for benefits instead of fear. Many thousand Flash developers will eventually hang up their tried-and-true tools in search for a better way. A more open, standards-abiding, creative community. If we (Flash developers) can do it, I'm sure H,264 blowhards can do the same.