I've gone over them so go ahead and cite the ones you think would cause problems.

Cost is certainly a factor but I somehow think they could afford it with billions in the bank.

They want to encourage upgrades which shouldn't be a surprise. IE is not a product that they sell.

Win7 improvements over Vista are minor. Releasing Win7 fixed their image problem and allowed them to make more cash. Vista was fixed with updates, there are plenty of benchmarks on the web that show this. But I realize most Slashdotters enjoy bashing M$ more than objectively measuring software.

You'd think it would have gotten old after Vista was fixed with updates but to Slashdot it is endless entertainment.

to let you know that comment wasn't funny then either.

It's pretty much 1999 forever here.

But I guess no one bothers to look at benchmarks.

No matter how popular the GIMP gets worldwide it will always have issues with adoption in the US because of the derogatory connotation.

It stopped being cool when Linux fans realized that Flash would give Android devices an advantage.

There is plenty of time to fix it given how slowly websites are moving away from Flash. Some of the bigger media websites have flat out stated that they have no interest in HTML5.

Android users don't have to run Flash, it's called choice.

No a website should not feel obligated to change hundreds of videos for 2% of web surfers, especially when that 2% has a desktop or laptop at home with Flash. What should they be changed to anyways? The HTML5 video spec isn't even finalized and there is still the IE6/7/8 problem.

I've come across local news sites that only had video in Flash. As for web developers they rarely get to decide which technology is used and HTML5 does not have nearly the same install base as Flash.

Whether or not Hulu blocks portables is irrelevant since they have adapted to Apple's plans.

Allowing Flash would give users more options and developers/content providers would not have to give Apple a cut. Apple never tried working with Adobe on mobile performance. The ipad has plenty of power for Flash so why not give users a choice? That is the real question.

This whole war against Flash is futile. The big media websites including Google did not ditch Flash as Jobs wanted which means it is here to stay. Flash on Android is currently in beta and the bugs will be eventually worked out. Apple defenders like yourself will find it harder to explain why it is good for consumers that Apple provides them with fewer choices and an incomplete web experience.

They are not pushing HTML5, they merely point to it as an alternative when in reality it isn't ready. If idevices had Flash then users would have more options for movie rentals and games. That's the underlying motivation.

Flash has a 97% install base and the security record hasn't reduced it. For Flash to die there has to be a better alternative and HTML5 is merely a planned alternative with a smaller install base. Silverlight is the best available alternative but also has the install base problem.

Even Google said that Flash isn't going anywhere. But maybe if a thousand more Slashdotters claim it to be dead the 97% install base will magically disappear.