When I read the page being described here, my personal impression was that the three links shown in the image above are implying alternative video formats — after all, QuickTime and Windows Media (the two other alternatives) are media formats, tied to particular pieces of software used to play back that media format, in contrast with YouTube which is a content/service provider.

As someone with training and interest in user-centered design, I absolutely agree that the user shouldn’t have to care about the underlying technology — Flash Player/FLV in this case. In fact, the reason YouTube chose to use FLV for its video format is to provide a seamless user experience, where the video “just works” without needing to worry about plugins, bandwidth, screen size, etc.

However, as is hopefully obvious to people who read what I’ve written on this site, in addition to my interest in user-centered design I also have an interest in teaching people about and promoting Flash Player and its related technologies. The point I was hoping to make in my lament is that YouTube was getting the credit rather than Flash Player, from the perspective of someone wanting Flash Player to get credit in the eyes of web developers and other video service providers who are trying to determine what video format they should use to deliver their own videos. I was merely pointing out what I felt was ironic, that the seamlessness of the YouTube experience is based strongly in their use of Flash Player and FLV, and yet that seamlessness is also a downside for Adobe, since it reduces the brand awareness for them.

For a comparable example, consider “Apollo,” the platform Adobe is developing for cross-platform desktop applications developed using traditional web application development techniques. Macromedia learned previously that when developers build desktop applications, they want control over the branding and appearance, so one of the publicly-stated goals for Apollo is that the end-user shouldn’t know that the application is running using Adobe Apollo — shouldn’t even really know what Adobe Apollo is. That means a lot of things in terms of seamless installation, both of the Apollo runtime as well as the way Apollo applications install and otherwise interface with the operating system. And for end-users (and developers) that’s all great — but for Adobe, it does reduce the opportunities for developers (Adobe’s customers) to become aware of the technology.

Ultimately I feel like it doesn’t matter if end-users know what the underlying technology is, and fortunately developers and video service providers have recognized that Flash Player helps to make the YouTube experience (and Google Video, and so forth) seamless and enjoyable — so that they too will choose to adopt FLV format and other Flash Player technologies in their web sites. Hopefully the same thing happens for Apollo — it will be great if a company can develop a (non-malicious) product that works so well that end-users aren’t even aware of its presence, but that doesn’t remain secret from customers because of its transparency.