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 489848
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Sep 2011 17:39 UTC 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

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Sep 2011 11:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.


WebM does not work with IE7 & IE8 and most of our users view the site in those browsers and that is what we support internally. As the vast majority of our visitors have flash installed (95%).

Many of our Firefox visitors are still on Firefox 3.6.

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.


I am not pissing off any of our visitors ... I have ensured that 99.9% of our visitors can view videos. I don't care about people like Kroc that refuses to install flash.

We had 2 visitors last month browsing the site using Linux.

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?


The majority of our users are IE7/IE8/IE9, we get about 6000 visitors a day. Even if the majority were Chrome, Firefox or Opera (we had a few hundred Opera users, I don't even bother supporting those), all those browsers support flash in Windows and MacOSX.

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


Oh Comon. It is not like we can stick an off the shelf Terabyte drive into a SAS/NAS at the hosting company. I forgot the details (since I am not a server admin), but it isn't cheap to get the hosting company to buy and fit the disks. We aren't talking hundreds we are talking thousands of pounds.

Most people have flash installed, There are such a small percentage of people that visit the site and do not have flash installed on regular Computers, it doesn't matter. We have thousands of uniques per day.

Edited 2011-09-17 11:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3