This is a weak article.

> It's called bait and switch.

Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering.

> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.

Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.

> This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin,

This is splitting hairs and a straw man. The user does not care or typically doesn't differentiate between something that's part of the browser and something that is a bundled plug-in. The user experience is basically the same.

So any argument using a criteria about building in a proprietary and closed standard to the browser versus bundling a proprietary and closed plug-in is at somewhere between fatuous and disingenuous.

> If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed.

WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved. This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.

> it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.

If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?

If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.

> Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.

Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?

> In other words: The processing will always be there, and instead of re-processing to a slightly more compressed H.264 file for online play, it can be converted to an open format.

If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players. For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.

These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.

> As already explained, videos are typically re-encoded or processed in some way anyway.

Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.

> Notice the word "plugin". It means that we're basically removing HTML5 video, and returning to plugins. All the benefits of native video disappear just like that

What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.

> If I am not mistaken, the share of open standards based browsers is growing at the expense of Internet Explorer.

Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser. Chrome's share exceeds Safari's (AFAIK) but the latter is still significant and I can't imagine it getting WebM support anytime soon. Apple are very much wedded to H.264 support by virtue of their devices if nothing else (anecdote: I played 6 hours of video on a plane on my iPad using 10% of the battery).

> it is H.264 which takes away choice.

By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.

All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.

> I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned.

Hold yourself to a higher standard (and, more importantly, preach those standards to others) and you will be the recipient of greater scrutiny.

At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right".

Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.

Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.