I think a proprietary video codec is significantly less open-threatening than a proprietary runtime. For one thing, the codec will eventually lose its patent protections. The runtime will continue to evolve at the platform owner's discretion.
Regardless of how you feel about h.264 in general though, the decision to not support h.264 video in the browser through the video tag means that Flash is going to be sticking around just so we can watch videos.
Right now as a software developer you have the option of not using Flash.
Depending on your constraints, that may be a difficult choice to make, but it's a choice nonetheless: HTML5 is getting more popular, the JVM was always capable and popular enough for many scenarios, and there's also Silverlight.
But choosing another codec for your multiple TB (and growing) of video you want to serve on the web? You've got no choice but H.264, as anything else would cost you dearly.
And I'm pretty sure you don't know how software patents work.
Companies apply for the same patents with different wording all the time. And there will also come a time when H.264 will not be enough, with MPEGLA in their infinite resourcefulness offering an easy upgrade to the next version under "reasonable" terms. By the time the standard will be patents free, H.264 will be as relevant as GIF is today.
What, you mean only useful for web comedy and image boards?
> And I'm pretty sure you don't know how software patents work. Companies apply for the same patents with different wording all the time. And there will also come a time when H.264 will not be enough, with MPEGLA in their infinite resourcefulness offering an easy upgrade to the next version under "reasonable" terms.
I really don't understand what your first part is getting at. MPEGLA will re-patent h.264 technologies under similar patents? As for the second part: Well, that gives Google a number of years to develop a codec that's actually really good and has hardware vendor support and is still free and all that. Just because you have multiple TB of video doesn't mean that different videos can't be encoded for web differently.
And your argument is moot anyway because this is introducing a significant fracture between Apple/mobile devices and desktop devices. People are still going to have to use another codec for their multiple TB and growing amounts of video!
But the runtime will fade away. This is Google making a fresh start for the years to come. Shouldn't that start be with a open codec instead of a closed one?
The de facto standard for serving <video> today is making a h.246, WebM, a OGG and a FLV (for fallback). Look at videoJS.
So it doesn't mean Flash for video is sticking around.
Regardless of how you feel about h.264 in general though, the decision to not support h.264 video in the browser through the video tag means that Flash is going to be sticking around just so we can watch videos.
An incredible victory for openness!