Linked by David Adams on Thu 15th Sep 2011 07:08 UTC, submitted by kristoph
Windows Microsoft announced during the build conference, and Steve Sinofsky reiterated in a blog posting that: "For the web to move forward and for consumers to get the most out of touch-first browsing, the Metro style browser in Windows 8 is as HTML5-only as possible, and plug-in free. The experience that plug-ins provide today is not a good match with Metro style browsing and the modern HTML5 web." Sinfosky goes on explain why Microsoft will not include Flash and why it's no longer needed. It's as close as we'll get to an obituary for Flash. Update from Thom: Added a note in the 'read more'!
Thread beginning with comment 489728
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 15th Sep 2011 17:08 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

I'm not surprised that MS dumps Flash, what do they care? But to move away from their lock-in-ish Silverlight to open standards is very not Microsoft like. And I'm glad they are doing it, it'll benefit the Web (let's see if they'll start supporting WebM as well).

Would be great if they'd do the same thing for OpenGL, but I doubt it could happen, since DirectX penetration is way deeper than Silverlight's.

Edited 2011-09-15 17:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Thu 15th Sep 2011 19:51 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

OpenGL sucks. Why abandon DirectX, which is both superior and more widely used, for OpenGL garbage? What, just because OpenGL is some sort of "standard"? There are lots of standards that suck, and OpenGL is one of 'em.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 15th Sep 2011 20:50 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It "sucks" as far as Microsoft distracted vendors to work on DirectX instead. In fact OpenGL doesn't suck. But some drivers from vendors - do.

DirectX is not superior to OpenGL. But Microsfot's domination causes it to be more supported [on Windows, it's non existent elsewhere], that's it. You aren't forced to feed MS monopoly machine though.

Edited 2011-09-15 20:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Lennie on Thu 15th Sep 2011 23:45 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

They won't be supporting WebM.

They are one of the members of the organisation that created/owns H.264

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Sep 2011 01:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

They won't be supporting WebM. They are one of the members of the organisation that created/owns H.264


It hardly matters if Microsoft don't support webM, because WebM supports Windows and IE9+.

http://www.webmproject.org/code/#webm-repositories

From a website developers point of view, HTML5/WebM will have far, far wider support than HTML5/H264 ever will.

Reply Parent Score: 3