to get it to run, not ready to go there now. Here is something I found comparing h264 (HTML5 format) with FLV:
"H.264, a subset of mpeg4, is clearly a decent codec offering good quality at low files sizes. Its support on a range of platforms is good, and some see it as the future of web video.
H264 appears to be broadly equivalent to flv / VP6 in the quality versus filesize tradeoff, with Apple users often seeing more of a slight advantage to H264 than other users report. For most non-technical viewers the quality advantage will be unnoticeable, and is likely to be overwhelmed by differing choices in data rate and picture size, alongside original programme quality.
Flash video support for transparency (and I think cue points) currently requires flv / VP6.
H264 is a complex codec making significant hardware demands. While H264 is good on newer and faster machines doing one thing at a time, on the "long tail" of systems out in the wild it seems likely that more users will experience problems from the greater demands of h.264. Older test systems here that play flv / vp6 smoothly sometimes struggle to decode h.264
If high definition video becomes more prominent on the web, this issue may become more pressing. On2 are already offering (in their proprietary encoders) a simplified version of vp6, to make for easier playback of high definition video (at the price of a little quality loss.)
Apple does seem to have made a surprising choice, with no Flash support in the iPad (like the iPhone), given Flash's near-omnipresence on the web just now."
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/190/866643I'm going to bet FLASH video's demise has been greatly exaggerated, based on:
1) The W3C has a great record for cataloging and documenting, and a crappy record for innovation
2) FLASH player already is compatible with h264
3) Apple's move to be FLASH-compatible removes the largest remaining hurdle for wireless playback