There is now, less and less reason to use Flash on a website as the new HTML5  standard is starting to be implemented by the browser vendors. How does HTML 5 sound the death knell for Flash? Let’s list some of the major features of both side by side.

So as you can see all bases are covered. But, HTML5’s ascendancy is all dependent upon browser implementation. Again we’re heading into an era of competing browser technologies as some browser vendors choose differing implementations. HTML5 video is a good example. FireFox only supports, the Ogg Theora format, while the others are going with H.264. This hardly makes developers’ or content providers’ lives easy.

But somewhere along the way, everything will harmonize. And at that point, Flash will be history. It’s inevitable. Why would you mess about with a third party plugin when the browser will natively do all the things you require?

Multiple file uploads were for a long time a reason to have Flash on your site. It was just so frustrating to use standard HTML forms to upload multiple files. You had to select each individual file one at a time. But now, along comes HTML5 with multiple file upload. Progress indicators are now also possible. There is even an example of a drag and drop multiple file upload. The future of useful web applications is bright, but Flash won’t be there.

I found this blog post “Video Tag and Subtitles” which demonstrates the new video tag, but also uses JavaScript to add subtitles.

The demonstration requires a standards compliant browser supporting the HTML5 video tag, which currently is Firefox 3.1 / 3.5 or the nightly build versions of Safari (Webkit) or Opera.

The Smarthouse post, “Banned Freeview Video Reappears On New Web Sites”, explains how Freeview requested YouTube to pull a parody video of their advertisement. Freeview are promoting an internet TV service, where you can watch, as the parody puts it, more of the same old stuff that you can see on the standard free to air TV stations, but wait for this, you still can’t skip the ads.

And so now in true internet justice the same banned ad is now appearing again on many more sites on the internet. It reminds me of 2Clix’s attempts to stiffle public opinion. Some people just don’t have a clue.

Here’s the clip.

So greedy have they become, the same adverts that run in the video are also displayed as static image adverts along the side of the page. The adverts aren’t even contextual. So you could be watching a story about the latest horrific bombing of civilians after your happy family chocolates advert. Hardly the sort of product placement I’d want for my brand or product.

Many of the large corporations seem to be at a loss as what to do with online video. The bandwidth and storage it consumes is costly. And so they are left scratching their heads as to how they can possibly turn a profit from it.

The must be long deafening silences in corporate think tanks until some bright spark comes up with the idea of let’s do it the old way because we don’t dare try anything new. Just ram it down people’s throats. Why we’re so big, the audience doesn’t have a choice.

Or do they? The coporations seem to be longing for the silver bullet fix to this nasty new media technology, that gives the consumer, god forbid, a choice. As I wrote in my previous post about Facebook overtaking MySpace, the quickening pace of innovation is threatening the very foundations of the business models that have dominated our modern media.

New upstart startups can quickly rocket ahead of lumbering Jurassic giants leaving them scrambling in the dust to catch up. This can be seen the make overs, widgets and other functionality features that MySpace quickly sticky taped on to their website.

And now there’s a new can of worms called mobile media. With expensive data transfer rates and limited screen space on hand held mobile devices, there will be even less tolerance from audiences for advertising bully boy tactics.

A growing thorn in the sides of these media moguls is the fact that the audience is no longer a dumb mute consumer. They have a voice and are willing to share their opinions and experiences amongst their social networks. Enabled by the immediacy of networked digital technology they can quickly inform each other of where better opportunities or offers are.

Oft of late have I read the of the media complaining of this citizen journalism, complaining how they are leeches that take their hard work and regurgitate it. These same voices fail to  then acknowledge the two way street where the “professional” journalists are now trawling social media networks for the latest events as they are proving more immediate than the standard news networks, as evidenced recently with the Twitter and Gaza and plane crashes.

Think it impossible for the status quo to be challenged? Ponder this. Neither Google or Facebook have been sold into established media hands. They both rose from backyard obscurity to being two of the most powerful companies on the internet. They could challenge establishment because of their willingness to innovate. Both have been shrewd enough not to opt for the easy path and attempt to force advertising on their users.

But the question often asked in the media circles today, is how and when will they turn a profit from their huge user bases? The answer to that lies with how innovative and useful they choose to be for the people who use their services and paying close attention to how they are used and giving people what they want or need.