Flash hasn't been a favoured form of malware transmission for years. There are much easier targets these days, with click-to-play protection for plug-ins now being the norm in all major browsers.
Meanwhile, millions and millions of people still benefit from Flash apps every day, and all of those people are going to lose out.
Flash isn't any sort of standard except in the limited sense that it is used on a lot of web sites.
And, until recently, more widely available and consistent across platforms than just about any official web standards other than HTML 4, CSS 2.1 and HTTP. In other words, Flash was a standard in the only way that really matters: it worked the same almost everywhere. Which, by the way, is far more than can be said for many of the new shiny toys that are supposed to replace it.
It's a proprietary, closed source plugin and application; the precise opposite of a standard.
Well, for one thing, that isn't anything like the precise opposite of a standard.
As for proprietary, closed source, and running as a separate process, have you looked at how HTML5 video works on iOS lately? Or the uses of EME, which is now a W3C standard? Or the number of different encodings you need to create to do something as simple as playing a video across most browsers in 2016, compared to the exactly one you needed with any number of Flash video players before?
This so-called "standard" exists solely at the whim of one company, Adobe, and they can do whatever they wish with it without regard to its users or anyone else.
How is that fundamentally different to all the major browsers pushing substandard HTML5 features instead because Google decides Chrome will do so and everyone else apparently feels the need to emulate them? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (except that now you can't even see what the old boss was like any more because all the records are inaccessible).
I don't see HBI saying anything of the sort. They're saying that browsers discontinuing support and thus making content on the Web inaccessible to their users is a bad thing.
And they're absolutely right.
The trend for modern browsers to drop support for any standard more than five minutes old, and in doing so cut off huge amounts of valuable content developed over multiple decades, is exactly the opposite of what the Web is supposed to be about.
They probably could, but some customers will see that as trying to duck responsibility and pass the buck, which usually isn't well received.
Never underestimate the value of a large existing customer base. Many of the largest and most successful businesses in tech today got there by amassing a critical mass of customers in the right place at the right time, and then using that scale as a lever to reach economies of scale and degrees of bargaining power that no smaller competitor could rival.
FWIW, I also think the audio streaming comparison you seem to be implying is a little unfair. Audio streaming services aren't just replacing listening to broadcast radio, they're replacing buying records and tapes and CDs as the primary way many people enjoy audio recordings. Licensing to commercial radio stations very cheaply or even at a loss was viable because exposure on those radio stations drove sales of permanent copies. It's unrealistic to expect that a streaming service that basically exists to replace those sales could offer the same kind of flexibility to much the same market for an entire catalogue of music at anything close to the licensing fees that commercial radio stations used to pay, if they even paid at all.
Indeed. When I went to school, we used to learn a story about a boy and a wolf. It didn't end well for him, and one of my biggest concerns about the whole terrorism paranoia thing is that our governments are making exactly the same mistake.
None is exactly what additional protection we'll get from the EU after Brexit.
Though we'll still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is independent of the EU, has its own court, and does not have the associated political shenanigans the UK pulled in relation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that is at issue here.
Voting the parent a troll seems rather unfair. It's a pretty accurate summary of the problem for Netflix: the gaps might not be their fault in some cases, but they're still the ones asking their customers for money and providing a disappointing experience in return.
I'm a little surprised they aren't in a position to play hardball in some of these cases. There aren't that many places that are going to show reruns of older TV shows and generate significant extra licensing revenues from it, and it seems like if they insisted they would only work with rightsholders who would licence shows in their entirety on a long-term basis, they could turn that into a marketing advantage over any competitors who did not.
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.