Seems a poor example to me as I just tried the second URL on my Linux machine and its not all that smooth at all, and that is just moving the circle around the screen. FLASH on the other hand is a thousand times smoother than that doing a thousand more manipulations than that.

So yes there are alternatives, but are they as usable on lower spec machines? I doubt it. Bearing in mind my machine is a 3.2Ghz Core 2 Duo, so if that doesn't do it smooth I would not consider it a viable alternative to FLASH.

Fact is, FLASH brought fast vector animations to what was then pretty slow PCs. This makes it ideal for mobiles where they can run it on the GPU and do not have to rely on the web browser itself having accelerated graphics, which generally they do not (desktop as well as mobile) as far as I can tell.

Sure, if all web browsers suddenly had GPU accelerated vector support we probably could drop FLASH. But until then, FLASH is the only viable (though granted, overused/abused) solution.

Don't get me wrong, most FLASH sites are aweful. But if you are out and need to look at a site, only to find its FLASH so your mobile cannot view it, that sucks. If it wasn't for advertisers using so much FLASH, it wouldn't be a problem having it installed by default. You really should be able to choose if you want FLASH or static adverts without having to resort to things like flashblock.