Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

Four years after YouTube started "experimenting" with HTML5, it still uses Flash by default to show me videos on the latest versions of Firefox and IE. If Flash is not installed, YouTube resorts to HTML5 , which seems to play just fine, but still displays a big red warning about the missing Flash. Why can't they use HTML5 by default and resort to Flash if and only if the browser doesn't support HTML5? Why do they have to keep doing it the other way around? This is the kind of shit that keeps Flash alive.

On a slightly different note, I really wish "DRM on HTML5" fails and DRM users continue to be forced to rely on plugins like Flash. Not only do DRM users deserve the inferior experience, but also, if we really want to keep open standards open, there's got to be some fenced-off area where proprietary kids can play by themselves and the rest of us can ignore them. If there's one reason I want Flash to stay alive, that's it. Better Flash than some other bespoke ActiveX control like the Koreans use :(

tl;dr

No.

Flash is more alive than ever.

Facebook video, Google Street View, half of YouTube - it's amazing to me that Google allows this to go on (or maybe they're just strategizing against mobile platforms they don't make native apps for).

Also, almost every video player these days outside of the biggest companies. I recall trying to watch some US govt streaming stuff recently that didn't work.

We must continue the fight. The lack of HTML5 street view is particularly telling, imho.

Please edit the title to include 2010, so others can at least avoid the slow realisation as they read the article that this is not a contemporary analysis.

Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? Granted, it does allow for lock-in, but it depends on who's doing the lock-in. I don't think the case has been sufficiently made that DRM is bad in and of itself. I am all in favour of open standards, no vendor lock in, I'm in favour of open source and free software. Let me reiterate just so there's no confusion, I use Ubuntu on the desktop, I use Gentoo on the server, I have an Nexus phone and tablet. However, I fail to see how DRM is bad in and of itself. I would prefer if all software was done in the open but I don't think proprietary software is evil or morally bad. I think it increases the likelihood of harm to the user somewhere down the line but I don't think the harm is inevitable. In the case of DRM I think the harm is even more remote, what do you think?

Side note: what irks me is multiple formats ... Say I'm, an old timer, I've bought an album on vinyl, I figure that should give me some deduction when CD comes out or digital only or DVD-audio or whatever, I think making people purchase the same content on different formats over and over again at full price with no discount and not taking into account that you've purchased that album before is unfair!