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 489811
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Sep 2011 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

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[5]: Comment by shmerl
by HowDoIShotWebM on Fri 16th Sep 2011 08:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
HowDoIShotWebM Member since:

Somehow I began to feel even worse for Adobe after reading that... could you imagine how'd they feel just when they thought Google would support them by bundling in Flash with Chrome?

If Apple and Microsoft hammered in the nails to the Flash coffin by not supporting it in their tablet OSes, Google dropping Flash support on YouTube would be the part where they put on the epitaph.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 16th Sep 2011 15:35 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:

Adobe had their chance to improve performance of Flash. They didn't, intentionally put much resource into it. Now they pay the price. May be open sourcing Flash can prolong its usage.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by kristoph on Sat 17th Sep 2011 17:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
kristoph Member since:

You Tube streams H264 as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Sep 2011 23:11 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:

You Tube streams H264 as well.

For now. Google may as well, since it keeps a H264 for the sake of Flash. However the ultimate objective for Google is to not require a H264 copy, in order to: save on storage (YouTube has literally millions of videos); to avoid any control that the MPEG LA consortium has over Google/YouTube's continued ability to conduct business; for all buisness to be able to run Internet video clip ads without having to pay MPEG LA for the ability to do so; and finally perhaps for YouTube to be able to show community-source video yet save on license fees paid to the MPEG LA consortium and hence to competitors.

What is the point of trying to run a competitive business if your competitors have the ability to stop you running it at their whim, and they also have the ability to profit from your running it?

Edited 2011-09-18 23:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2