[CyberMonk]

I'm surprised Gruber didn't also pose a question about the murky patent landscape re: WebM. If Google decides to throw their full weight behind WebM, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some legal action on the part of MPEG-LA.

That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).

Addendum: whereby I mean to say that there are undoubtedly numerous users who have been "harmed" (whether they know it or not) by the lack of Flash on iOS devices (e.g., because they could not view a given website on their device), even if the removal of Flash will be good for the web in the long term.

[danilocampos]

> That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).

The "Who is happy" test for Flash passes, though. I, for one, have desperately yearned for the death of Flash for years before Apple partisans took up the mantle. Why? I was partly responsible for maintenance and analytics of a terrible flash website that, superficially, looked kind of neat. All you have to do is have this trash plugged into something mission critical to start wishing for its demise.

And I'm not alone. Flash is a crappy, frustratingly ubiquitous technology whose marginalization is a godsend for anyone who cares about a usable web. Anyone who has ever tried to use a restaurant website is happy about the end of flash.

[kjksf]

Sure, if the only opinion that matters is yours.

For one, millions of people play Flash games. They would not be happy if Flash was gone.

For a long time Flash was the best way to deliver video on the web. People who watched those videos would not be happy if Flash was gone.

Flash succeeded on the web based on merits, despite being in a relatively hostile environment (as every plugin is by the virtue of not being bundled with a browser and needing a separate action to install it).

The fact that it became ubiquitous is evidence that most people wanted it to have hence would be not happy if they didn't get it.

Your position on flash is valid as a personal opinion but you're wrong that Apple's decision to not support Flash passes "happy" test for their customers and users. It's just one more example of Apple's doing what Apple wants, users be damned; of arrogance born out of success.

[danilocampos]

"Who would be happy?" != "Would a majority be happy?"

I didn't assert everyone would be over the moon with Flash gone. I'm saying that you don't have to look hard for people who would be. Killing H.264, a popular format, in a growing browser is much more of a headscratcher.

>Apple's doing what Apple wants, users be damned; of arrogance born out of success.

I think you've got that mixed up. Apple's success is a function of its arrogance. Every smash hit they've had came from arrogance, whether you pick the iMac, with its embrace of USB, to iTunes, with its crazy, user-friendly licensing, or the iPod, with its paltry storage space and simplistic UI, or the iPhone, with its lack of a keyboard or stylus... etc.

Apple's success comes from having the balls to say "Fuck you guys, we're doing it this way, because it's better." As usual, they got it right with Flash. And history has shown that in the end, users were at the very center of those decisions, even if the consequences were initially unfamiliar.

[statictype]

Killing H.264, a popular format, in a growing browser is much more of a headscratcher.

H.264 is not open. WebM is. WebM also has the technical quality to rival H.264 (which Theora does not) Certainly there are downsides to this decision but doesn't seem like a total headscratcher to me.

And history has shown that in the end, users were at the very center of those decisions, even if the consequences were initially unfamiliar.

You realize you could say the exact same thing about Google's decision now?

[lukifer]

Has mp3 not being "open" prevented people from making, listening to, and sharing music? Have Linux MP3 players been erased from the face of the earth by evil patent trolls?

I'm aware that the software world, and FOSS in particular, frequently bumps heads with this patent nonsense. But throwing existing technical solutions out the window to deal with a broken legal/economic complex seems backwards.

(There are parallels that could be drawn to Apple's blocking of Flash, but that arguably has as much to do with quality as openness/control. Flash's performance and stability is contentious at best. H264, on the other hand, is typically regarded as a best-of-breed codec.)

[ZeroGravitas]

Just as an interesting datapoint, SanDisk (the number two "mp3" player manufacturer the last time I checked) has dropped AAC support from some of their recent models, while still supporting free formats like Vorbis and FLAC, as well patented ones like as mp3 and WMA. Obviously the fees can have an impact even on big names.

[statictype]

I'm not saying the decision to drop h264 was necessary, just that it isn't a completely bewildering to imagine why they might do it.

Also, from what I understood (correct me if I'm wrong), WebM is technically at least as good as, if not better than, h264.

[frou_dh]

> Anyone who has ever tried to use a restaurant website is happy about the end of flash.

Anyone in the small user segment who knows what Flash is and can discern when they are or are not using it? My mother has been using the internet regularly for 10 years and I doubt she knows what Flash is or is impeded by sites using it.

I'd like for Flash to disappear, too, but don't buy this notion that it's hated beyond certain geeks and special cases.

[colinsidoti]

I'm sure the restaurants aren't very happy about it, and I guarantee a Flash website is more usable than a website that cannot be accessed at all.

The same concept applies here.

[jbri]

In a similar vein, anyone who cares about being build their own encoder or decoder for web video (or even just anyone who wants to compile from source their own build of a codec) is happy about having an unencumbered web video format instead of H.264.

[patrickaljord]

> it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some legal action on the part of MPEG-LA

It would be pretty unlikely actually. MPEG-LA has been threatening about Vorbis for the last 11 years and nothing has happened so far, same thing with theora. The last thing MPGEG-LA want is to reveal what patents exactly are being used by WebM (if any), they'd rather spread FUD and make companies pay for licenses out of fear like they always have as the patent troll that they are. I (and probably Google too) would actually love for them to start suing so we can finally debunk those patents, which is why they probably won't.

[CyberMonk]

The difference being that Vorbis has almost no commercial traction. If large, popular services (like YouTube, for instance) decided to go with a codec like WebM, the MPEG-LA might finally decide to make good on those threats.

[bzbarsky]

YouTube announced months ago that they're transcoding pretty much everything they have to WebM. They've been working on it ever since; a significant fraction of YouTube videos are available in WebM right this second.

[patrickaljord]

Vorbis is being used in many of the biggest games, the gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar one, why not sue them? Doesn't make sense unless they really secretly hate google and only want to sue them...

[halo]

Spotify uses Vorbis and has ten million users.

[CyberMonk]

True, but Vorbis is an audio spec, not a video one. Theora, which would arguably be more on MPEG-LA's radar, is used in only a handful of titles: http://wiki.xiph.org/Games_that_use_Theora

[blasdel]

Why did you argue with yourself instead of editing your parent post?

[jarek]

I'm guessing he was replying to patrickaljord but the reply button wasn't there yet.

[ZeroGravitas]

That's just an out of date list e.g. Starcraft II used Theora (and Vorbis).

[bradleyland]

I think the differences are this:

* Apple has a very well documented case that Flash contributes to significant instability on their platform, hence they didn't want it on iOS

* Flash was/is a significant consumer of CPU cycles, resulting in reduced battery life, which didn't allow them to meet performance targets

Regardless of your position on Flash as a proprietary piece of software, its presence would have had a very real impact on the performance and reliability of Apple's product at launch. That's not to say there wasn't an ideological component, because Steve Jobs himself included one in his anti-Flash rant, but I find it a little easier to excuse apple for leaving Flash out in the cold on iOS than I do Google shutting the door on H.264.

[jarek]

Not disagreeing with Apple's case against Flash, but at the same time Google also has pretty strong reasons to actively try to bring H.264 down, both as a browser maker and a video site operator.

[Cadsby]

That's fine. No one faults Google for doing whatever they feel is in their strategic, long term interest.

What annoys some people to no end however, is the incessant attempts to market everything they do in the name of "openness".