> At first, they touted the maneuver as being all about supporting “open” formats. But if that’s the case, why not pull support for the Flash plug-in baked into every version of Chrome currently?
This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear.
1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash.
2) Are we really going to pull the "all or nothing" argument with a bunch of programmers and developers who, maybe more than anyone, are constantly driven by the force known as evolution? Just because they haven't removed Flash today doesn't mean they won't in the future. The probability of Google dumping Flash in the next 5 years is likely, perhaps not high. Furthermore, YouTube's HTML5 implementation doesn't exactly come across as fear for HTML5 video.
WebM needed to be here 5 years ago. H.264 should have been dumped before it got traction. Better late than never, no? Or in this case, off course - but constantly correcting.
It is very frustrating to hear this constantly touted as hypocrisy.
It is not.
Users and developers are free to use any and all Flash components. Flash itself is a published standard (although proprietary). You can create alternative VMs largely w/o caveat (the only one i've heard raised was some DRM junk having to do with Flash Media Server, which no one should use anyway).
There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.
Furthermore, it is obnoxious that Flash is always uncritically trotted out as the only example of proprietary components in Chrome. What about Java plugins? Anything you want to say about Flash you can say about Java applets.
Please stop spreading FUD.
Also, Google didn't own WebM 5 years ago. It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.
> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.
I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8.
When I say WebM needed to be here 5 years ago, that's all I'm saying. No one company, standards body, org. is to blame.
> There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.
Agreed. The individual user is not effected. The browser, and those who encode en masse for profit are exposed to potential pitfalls of the licensing. I'm not saying these royalties are debilitating or that the web will cripple into a video-less nothingness.
What I am saying is: If we can replace something proprietary with something more open, that is a good thing.
> Please stop spreading FUD.
It really seems as though you're spreading FUD by ascertaining my opinions as allegiance to one camp or another.
I'll admit I have a slight distaste for those who insist that H.264's penetration is reason alone to continue using it. Especially when I, up until a few years ago, was a lead Flash developer. Mainly due to Apple's insistence that Flash was the devil. I want you to see the ignorant, double-standard here. Flash and H.264 both have high penetration rates. Both are used extensively on the web and beyond. Yet only Flash must die? See how this is completely asinine?
Instead of pointing a finger at Apple and declare them the enemy of my camp, I examined the situation for benefits instead of fear.
Many thousand Flash developers will eventually hang up their tried-and-true tools in search for a better way. A more open, standards-abiding, creative community.
If we (Flash developers) can do it, I'm sure H,264 blowhards can do the same.
Sorry, my comment wasn't terribly clear, i am mainly agreeing with you!
I actually work in online video development, and the company i work for has determined even prior to the WebM hubbub that we were going to have to stick with a flash based player definitely for the short term, most likely for the medium term, and the long term is yet to be determined.
The thing is, that for all the monstrosities inflicted on the web by Adobe and Macromedia (may their children be afflicted with irritating skin diseases), they're neither business nor developer hostile (except through neglect).
They want people to use their products, and their existing revenue generating business is based around high penetration. The structure of their business and their incentives are such that pissing off the entire developer community would be a very bad thing (and you can see this in the fact that people like you are now former flash developers, and next to no one is willing to cop to being a current flash developer).
MPEGLA's incentives are different and their revenue sources are exclusively through licensing and enforcement.
So the bit of FUD that i find frustrating is the notion that the Flash or Java plugins are similar to codecs. They really aren't, except superficially.
The reduction ad Hitle^W Flash argument is totally flawed, yet it keeps repeating in every single article on "Google-and-WebM-vs-H.264" article.
I think there's a simple quality measurement of an article in this case. If article presents both pros and cons of Google's (Apple's, Microsoft's) decision - it's more likely the article's good. Otherwise it's probably one-sided.
This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear.
1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash.
2) Are we really going to pull the "all or nothing" argument with a bunch of programmers and developers who, maybe more than anyone, are constantly driven by the force known as evolution? Just because they haven't removed Flash today doesn't mean they won't in the future. The probability of Google dumping Flash in the next 5 years is likely, perhaps not high. Furthermore, YouTube's HTML5 implementation doesn't exactly come across as fear for HTML5 video.
WebM needed to be here 5 years ago. H.264 should have been dumped before it got traction. Better late than never, no? Or in this case, off course - but constantly correcting.