not surprising, as flash allows a measure of obfuscation vs just putting a url directly to the video file out there.

A Flash-based video player can be VERY lightweight, but they usually aren't. Remember, Flash isn't a video container, it's a video player. Not only does it allow a website visitor an easy way of viewing video content, it can also offer the content provider a very effective means for locking down that content (ff you want to see what can be done with Flash to REALLY lock down your content, spend some time on Disney's website).

I think any website's decision to support is OK. It's not great, but it's tolerable. Flash isn't a very good solution for video for a lot of reasons. However, it's not Adobe's fault that it's the most popular and the de-facto standard for cross-platform video on the web. It's not the consumer's fault either. Flash enjoys its current position in the video-for-web conversation because a long time ago developers started using the Flash tools to solve the cross-platform video problem for the web. Developers put the Flash technology in this role, and they did this long before most of us even cared about watching video on the web. Those developers created the video-for-web experience that we all take for granted when we visit a site like Youtube (I remembered being stunned by Google's purchase of Youtube because Google had taken a very anti-flash and pro-standards approach with all of its online-target development, and Youtube represented a gigantic technological departure from their Javascript+CSS way of doing business). If you take your mind back in time, you'll remember that it wasn't exactly easy for most people to install and use flash in the browser, but we Internet users went through the arduous process because apparently we thought it was worth it. Now that it's very ease to have Flash running in a browser, we take it for granted and forget how hard it used to be.

As much as I have a problem with a proprietary technology having the stranglehold on something that has become as ubiquitous and important as video-for-web, I at least appreciate the history and meaning of its rise. Proprietary technology is very important, especially when it solves a problem before more open, inclusive efforts can or when it just does so better, faster, or more efficiently. For their role and importance, I think that Adobe should get at least a little special consideration as this debate moves forward. Apple shouldn't. Apple decided not to include or support flash on its most mobile devices. It wasn't a matter of couldn't. It was a matter of wouldn't. Apple is correct that we need to start moving away from dependence on Adobe-held technologies and migrate away Flash-centric video-for-web. However, Apple's wrong in pressuring content providers and developers into exchanging one proprietary solution which works for almost everybody (except for Apple's customers) for another proprietary solution which works for almost nobody (except for Apple's customers). A request like that would be absurd enough as is if it wasn't buttressed by Apple's deliberate omission of Flash positioned as a fulcrum with which to exert this pressure. At that point, you have to wonder if content providers, developers, or consumers that cave into Apple's gambit simply don't know any better or don't care. In the end, it doesn't matter. I guess it's easy to forget that despite getting covered like one of the big boys, Apple gets outsold by the actual big boys and will always remain a niche company as long as they lock their fanbase into niche technologies.