Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> On the one hand you have Flash, which has been around for ages and you can't just take it out without breaking a lot of the web.

Google does not need to bake Flash into Chrome. Somehow browsers have survived a decade without the need. Google's stance is bullshit corporate strategy. You bending over backwards to justify it is just comical.

> If you couldn't run flash at all on a Mac, ever, it would be disastrous.

For Adobe. It's not going to affect anyone's purchase of a Macbook just as it didn't affect anyone's purchase of an iPad.

> H.264 on the other hand is a brand new technology

Wrong. H.264 has been around for 7 years. It has hardware decoders in nearly every mobile device. It encodes 2/3 (and probably more now) of the web's video. It's used by almost every single major content provider.

It is WebM that is the new technology. Released 8 months ago to be precise. No hardware support yet (sorry, releasing VHDL designs doesn't count), almost zero content support, etc, etc. This isn't even close.

> there is still time to make the right move before we end up in the same position as we are with Flash today: everyone wanting it gone but it not being easy to remove it

Except no one wants H.264 gone. It's a high quality standard supported by devices everywhere.

> (similar to the GIF situation as well)

The GIF situation turned out fine. Thanks for the great counterexample to your logic.



> Google does not need to bake Flash into Chrome

Might I inquire where I can find Google Flash in Chrome? I only have Adobe Flash. Until you can show me a Google developed Flash, it's merely Google shipping an Adobe plugin, which is not the same as actively supporting H.264.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: