Right, and that difference is to do with the experience of implementing the solution not consuming the solution. I agree the decision to choose an open source solution over a closed source solution that you can patch yourself if you come across a roadblock is very powerful. But to the end user consuming the rich media experience there is very little differences between the two implementations at this moment in time, both are buggy, overload the CPU and have issues with accessibility. To them the only perceivable difference is likely that one also works in IE.<p>I'm hoping there will be a big shift back to content just being content without the need for big shiny bells and whistles as well. That said, if after a user has read my piece, viewed my video, but still wants something else I'd like to give them the option of something "different" if there is a demand for it. E.g. <a href="http://www.thecoronabeach.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thecoronabeach.com/</a> it bugs me though when the brand doesn't offer the more friendly traditional experience as the primary presence on the web... e.g. www.corona.com its just awful.<p>BTW, the only time I really get a browser crash due to flash is when I'm working with my own code in a early state if ever, its very rare. I see alot of errors on about 25% of sites as I run the debug version of the player, but they don't cause my browser to crash. They are just as annoying as those old javascript error alert boxes that older browsers use though. And I run flash alot!