[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.