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 489800
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Sep 2011 01:54 UTC 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

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by kristoph on Fri 16th Sep 2011 04:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

A user has to install this. Most user don't know what DirectShow or a codec are, how or why to install it, etc.

Consequently, for most people, a site that only supported webm would be 'broken'.

Realistically most sites will simply support both h264 and webm sources with h264 probably more prominent simply because browsers which don't support it support flash players which can then play h264.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Sep 2011 07:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A user has to install this. Most user don't know what DirectShow or a codec are, how or why to install it, etc. Consequently, for most people, a site that only supported webm would be 'broken'. Realistically most sites will simply support both h264 and webm sources with h264 probably more prominent simply because browsers which don't support it support flash players which can then play h264.


The first version of Android to support WebM was Gingerbread. It will be a while before Gingerbread or later is on most Android phones. With Google activating over 500,000 new Android devices each day, this won't take all that long.

When that happens, Google may at that point direct YouTube to "throw the big switch" and change over to primarily WebM, with Flash fallback still supported for a while. YouTube will point out that after all, Microsoft is dropping support for Flash, so YouTube should as well.

People visiting the YouTube site using IE9+ and Windows, or Mac OSX and Safari, will be given a link via which they can simply install WebM. It will be only a small download, less trouble that installing Flash was in the first place.

If a user could install a Flash plugin some time ago in order to see YouTube, that same user should find it easier, or at least no harder, to install a WebM codec package in a similar way.

People visiting the YouTube site using IE6,IE7 or IE8 will be advised that their browser does not support HTML5 video natively, and although they will still be able to use YouTube for a while, they might be better off with Google Chrome, Firefox or Opera. They too will be offered a link.

People already using anything other than IE or Safari on any platform will, of course, have no trouble whatsoever. This is over half the people anyway.

Edited 2011-09-16 07:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Sep 2011 17:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As a web dev it actually easier just to say

"MP4 for iPads and IE9, and everything else can have flash".

I spoken with a few other web devs and they have told me they have done it exactly the same.

Also means I don't have to encode the same video 3 times. Only Twice ... saves disk space, and the crunching server has to do less.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Sep 2011 05:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As a web dev it actually easier just to say

"MP4 for iPads and IE9, and everything else can have flash".

I spoken with a few other web devs and they have told me they have done it exactly the same.

Also means I don't have to encode the same video 3 times. Only Twice ... saves disk space, and the crunching server has to do less.


How about "MP4 for iPads and IE9, and everything else can have WebM". You can then use essentially the same HTML5 streaming software, just pointed at a different source video file in each case.

For the cost of a few cents of disk space and a minute or so to re-encode the video, you will avoid thoroughly pissing off over half of your visitors, by giving them a HTML5/WebM video stream which their browser can render directly, and thereby not requiring them to run Flash.

Since these visitors wanting HTML5/WebM for their Chrome, Firefox or Opera browsers are the actual majority of users, shouldn't you be catering to them first?

If you really wanted desperately to save the pennies worth of disk space, then to cater for the remaining minority of your visitors, wouldn't it be much easier to provide a link to an installable WebM codec for them to use? Then they would be better off as well as you.

Edited 2011-09-17 05:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3