It makes sense to see Robert Reinhardt, the lead author of the Flash Bible series, write an article called “Flash Video: Why the Other Players Don’t Get It.” In it, he sings the praises of Flash video, the streaming format taking over the Web (it’s used by YouTube, Google, and MTV, to name a few).

Now here’s the shocker: Yesterday he penned “Flash Video: Move Over?” in which he offers numerous reasons to NOT use Flash video. What prompted this piece? ABC just ditched Flash video on their heavily promoted full-episode streaming site in favor of Move Networks.

The reason? Quality is one argument, but I don’t buy it. The other, which I totally buy, is that Flash player has no digital rights management; ABC can’t control content.

The format wars continue to rage between Windows Media, Real Networks, Flash, Quicktime, and even proprietary systems like Move Networks. Rage they may, but it’s impossible to say across the board one beats the other. Reinhardt, who makes his living off Flash, now says Flash video isn’t king—but no format is.

It’s all about purpose, audience, and the almighty price of production. ABC is offering long-format (for the Web), copywrited, million-dollar content supported by advertising, so they go for the custom (read pricey) solution. YouTube is hosting low-quality, user-uploaded content. Immediacy and volume is their game. And those are just two B-to-C entertainment-based examples. What about employee training or public awareness or any other use of video on the Web?

Rather than feed the debate about which format, or even which compression codec, is superior, learn strengths and weaknesses and pick the best one for your project. In the last year I’ve used Windows Media, Real, and Flash video, each for good reason and all with good results.

(Apologies to Cowboy, Melle Mel, Kid Creole, Rahiem, Scorpio, and the GrandMaster himself. –Eds.)