Risks in Google killing Adobe Flash

So...switching from a closed proprietary licensed codec to an open codec that anyone can freely implement in a similar manner is an abuse of power? Uh.....

I don't read what this guy writes anymore. Maybe I should, laughing is good for one's health.

Not as funny as it sounds.

It has nothing to do with the codec and everything to do with the demonstration of market power.

That said, the analysis is wrong.

First, Google is not obligated to use Adobe products and does not charge consumers for Youtube. A demonstration of consumer harm (one of the considerations in antitrust actions) would be very hard to come by.

Second, it's questionable that Google has a monopoly, even on the scale of Microsoft's desktop dominance of ten years ago.

Finally, you're right -- at some point the analysis has to consider the action, and an open codec might benefit Google vis-a-vis Adobe, but, in the absence of a monopoly or any improper actions, its hard to see the danger here.

Seriously -- does anybody think the government hasn't already heard of Google?

> does anybody think the government hasn't already heard of Google?

So far Google isn't the default pre-installed in anything, since I.E. points to Bing! by default.

Were they to get something like that, then maybe ... Oh never mind. Everything I've heard about the Anti-Trust laws leads me to think they could prosecute anyone for anything at any time.

(I wonder why the spell checker doesn't flag "someting". Interesting.)

OT: someting flags for me

On Topic, this got me thinking, remember when MS was going to try and put functional security in and the antivirus companies started screaming bloody murder and threatening lawsuits? I wonder if that would constitute a RICO violation for extortion/blackmail.

Guido the killer AV salesman "Protection is our business, try to move in on our territory and we will make sure it costs you."

Whitless consumer "We need their protection, look at all the viruses we get"

MS shill "Guido, come over here, we can make a back room deal"

Guido "Yes our way is better, this way Mr. Shill you cannot be held accountable."

Whitless consumer "Yay, we are still protected from all these viruses we keep getting"

Random *nix guy "Oy vey, W.C.Fields was right"

Adobe could produce tools that create HTML5 animation, tools that allow editing Html5 like you edit movies or other dynamic content.

It would be a great suite of tools for the more artistically gifted creators of that kind of content.

Of course if they put their capitol and efforts into preserving a proprietary stack of tools designed to lock the content in a given format, they will only have themselves to blame for missing out on a great opportunity to stay relevant.

I realize that Dana isn't the most clued-in I-cover-open-source writer out there:

Quoting:One thing Google has tried to be extra careful about in its rise to prominence is not calling attention to its power

Yep, Google - the 21st century's biggest secret ...

At any rate, FIRST he has a computer that runs WINDOWS and won't run Flash 10 ... then he worries about Google using an open codec. Like some apple cart will be disrupted if Google doesn't use Flash.

Has he not been following the news over the past weeks/months? Has he not heard about YouTube using H.264? Not that it's any less encumbered than Flash, but it's still NOT Flash.

Dana needs to think for a second before he writes. I write first, think second way too often myself, but I can usually go back and right the wrongs.

Probably the only entity that ever could put Flash in its proper place, especially when it comes to video, is Google through YouTube.

I imagine we need to start mass-mailing Mr. Blankenhorn about how beneficial open formats would be in multimedia. Where would the Web be without HTML, CSS, Javascript and PHP not being encumbered by closed technology? I could be wrong, but at this point even Java is more open than Flash or Novell's beloved Mono ...