Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 22nd May 2007 03:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 242483
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-08
"Playing video in flash is certainly broken."
"Broken" is not the word I would have used. I'd say (ab)using "Flash" as a replacement for HTML, images and video streaming is sick.
Most video portals today use "Flash". I would not complain if "Flash" would be an open standard, implemented as a standard feature in every major browser, such as the Javascript interpreter or the HTML and image renderer. But it's not that easy today. I think the company manufacturing "Flash" is to be blamed here, as well as the content providers pushing "Flash" onto users' desktops.
"We already have perfectly fine media players to play videos on. eg. mplayer"
We had them years ago, but nobody uses them. Open standards? Pah! Interoperability? Hah! Worst solution always wins. :-)
"There is no reason to force a user to use a media player that the site owner decides."
But that's the way it is. You want this? You need that. Some web sites even require outdated and strange browsers to work, and why is this? Because some Skriptkiddie is not smart enough to use Javascript properly.