Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Ditches Flash For HTML5 Video By Default
An anonymous reader writes: YouTube today announced it has finally stopped using Adobe Flash by default. The site now uses its HTML5 video player by default in Google's Chrome, Microsoft's IE11, Apple's Safari 8, and in beta versions of Mozilla's Firefox browser. At the same time, YouTube is now also defaulting to its HTML5 player on the web. In fact, the company is deprecating the "old style" Flash object embeds and its Flash API, pointing users to the iFrame API instead, since the latter can adapt depending on the device and browser you're using.
Now if only Bell Media/CTV here in Canada would do the same. They are the ONLY family of websites I know of that won't work with the Linux versions of Flash, complaining that you need an update because they check for the WINDOWS version numbers.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I am so glad to see this. I tended to watch videos on my macbook quite a bit and always hated that the massive load it put on my system because of how crappy flash was on a mac (or anything else).
Now if google would just announce no more flash allowed in ads, we'd be set.
And I can finally disable flash completely.
If your website still isn't usable without flash in 2015, I'll just go elsewhere.
All I care about is can we lose the ads?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
But, but, who is going to remind me every 36 hours that a new version of flash I need to download (along with crapware) is available?
Now hopefully the BBC will do the same.
...how many nails does this damn coffin need before we can bury it?!
That depends. Do you live in a country where Google's Music Key service is available?
channel customization to remove the bland look like it is now.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Better question.
Who cares?
Anyone still want to bitch about the lack of flash support in iOS?
How's that android plug in working for you? Oooh. Right. The one the stopped supporting and distributing years ago.
Just uninstalled Flash minutes ago. I'd been thinking about it for a while, but this pushed me to take action.
Now if I run into any site that requires it, I'll just go away.
Who cares?
Anybody that uses and is dependent on their cloud services probably cares very much. I hope they save all their pictures in TIFF.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I care. The death of Flash will be celebrated by many. Once YouTube stops using it there will be no reason to even install it any more. No more annoying updates, no more vulnerabilities.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Adobe has a lot of products other than Flash. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Flash is taking a long time to die, but Adobe must surely see that the future is in other technologies. They still have their Creative Cloud stuff, web analytics, etc.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
How about letting us buffer the entire video while paused now? Or maybe implementing a more reliable way to jump back in the video without things just hanging entirely... (Chrome 40 here)
I vaguely wondered about flash over the weekend just gone, as I reinstalled Windows. Then I forgot about it and installed the various programmes I use, (Office, Photoshop, Chrome). I won't need it at all it seems.
There's still one: porn.
Every time I've tried the "HTML5 video" on YouTube, it would:
1) lose sync, or just stop loading,
2) wouldn't let you pause/resume, and
3) didn't properly cache so you could "rewind" without streaming (download the same bits) again.
Or is YouTube yet another site that's now "Best Viewed in Chrome" (TM) ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I tried setting Chrome to use HTML5 on YouTube for about a month. I had to switch it back to flash because of one thing - Flashblock. With flashblock, you can open a bunch of videos at once in different tabs, and they will not start playing until you flip to the tab and click the flashblock button. With HTML5, all those videos start playing in the background tabs simultaneously as soon as the pages finish loading. So you're basically limited to opening one video at a time. No queuing up videos you want to watch and flipping through them tab by tab.
Does anyone know of an extension similar to flashblock but for HTML5 on Chrome?
Anyone dumb enough to depend on cloud services for critical workflow deserves what they get.
Cause I got no points and that's a handy tip!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Adobe doesn't sell the plugin, they sell their development tools. Those development tools are slowly being switched to html5, so Adobe's customers can continue to use them as always.
Adobe never made money off Flash Player - they made money from popular content creation tools which can now export to HTML5. I think they'll be fine with this.
And Adobe will become a distant memory. A company that was once on top but failed to keep innovating and fell into irrelevance along with RIM, Compaq, DEC, and the rest...
Porn and girlfriends / boyfriends are not mutually exclusive. Because, y'know, they are people too and might not want to exist simply to replace porn whenever you are in the mood.
Adobe never made money off Flash Player - they made money from popular content creation tools which can now export to HTML5
Mainly correct, and worth pointing out. That said, I'm sure they made quite a few quid through their tie-up with McAfee, weaselling their trial crapware onto people's systems with that oh-so-generous prechecked "yes" box on the Flash Player installer.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
If Adobe fails to exist, whos stopping them from obtaining an older version thats not cloud based. A .psd is the same, no matter what version you open it with. Also, most people dont save their regular pictures in .psd unless edited and even then, the only real benefit is to retain layers. They are saved in jpeg or the corresponding raw format for their camera which is readable by other programs other than photoshop and lightroom.
The day flash disappears permanently is the day I rejoice. I uninstalled flash on my home computers months ago. The only thing that doesn't work now are those damn videos on Facebook. Good riddance.
Does Adobe sell Flash? I thought they made their money selling things like Framemaker, Illustrator, and other publishing software.
The site now uses its HTML5 video player by default in ............... beta versions of Mozilla's Firefox browser.
So if one is using FireFox, does YouTube work w/o Flash? I thought it was stuck on the WebM vs Ogg Theora debate, which was why as far as YouTube went, FireFox had no option but to do Flash.
On a different note, how is GNU's GNASH?
You mean the web you browse with Google's Chrome, Microsoft's IE11, Apple's Safari 8, and in beta versions of Mozilla's Firefox?
Am I missing something here, or are these sentences completely redundant?
You comment that the parent is narrow minded and yet your view is equally narrow minded. I'm happily married (10 years now), together 17 years. I enjoyed porn before my marriage, and still enjoy it during my marriage. My wife enjoys it too, often times she'll watch it without me. We have an amazing sex life, but there is no reason that enjoyment of porn can't be a part of that. It provides ideas, fantasy, additional stimulation, an element of "dirtyness" and other elements that should always be welcome in a loving bedroom.
The reason why they don't just let you link to an mp4 or webm is that they're under this idea that their dynamic quality switching(which in theory should switch based on how good your connection is to youtube, but really just decides to pick between 240p and 1080p because fuck you) and their embedded player is a much better UX.
To that I say, fuck you Google. YouTube embeds on mobile give a direct mp4 stream and it beats the pants off watching it on their app or via their site's viewer.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Breaks the "download" functionality supported by by various plugins.
If I switch my user agent to "iPad", the videos play just fine in Safari 7 too.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Still, there's no reason you can't do stuff like that on better, more secure platforms.
In theory, I agree. But in practice, which "better, more secure platforms" for authoring and presenting vector animation on the web would you recommend? And how should we convince contributors to the aforementioned sites to remake their works using the new tech?
I go to get.webgl.org using Firefox 35.0.1 on a laptop with an Intel IGP and all I get is "Hmm. While your browser seems to support WebGL, it is disabled or unavailable. If possible, please ensure that you are running the latest drivers for your video card." Badgers, on the other hand, still plays perfectly.
Flash doesn't work particularly well on touch screens.
Neither does HTML5 if you abuse onmouseover. The lack of hover is completely orthogonal to the SWF vs. HTML debate.
Animated SVG for the simpler stuff, HTML5 canvas with JavaScript for more complicated animations.
So what tools would you recommend for building these without, say, having to type all the (x, y) coordinates into a script file? I haven't seen any animation stuff in Inkscape, unless there was some recent huge update of which I'm not aware.
The 2014 versions of Creative Cloud removed Flash export from Premiere, After Effects and Media Converter. If you wanted to retain that functionality, you needed to install a previous version that supported it.
.webm plugin for Premiere and Media Converter. I doubt Adobe is worried about Flash, they have plenty of other applications that are heavily used.
They're concentrating on the other web formats it seems. Someone even created a
Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere, After Effects and Audition being the ones I am most familiar with.
The files "in the cloud" are no longer compatible with previous versions. Adobe has stated that their cloud software can "export" to older version of Adobe products (at least for now) but newer features may not be included. This practically means that if you have the CC files and Adobe fails to exist and you haven't exported to older versions, you're SOL.
The same goes for most cloud-based apps including Office, Google Docs etc.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Hmm, guess I need to test this. Brb!
Ok, I tested it and it works. Using the latest CC photoshop i created a file, saved to my desktop and transfered it over to a computer with CS5 on it. Opened up right away. I didnt do any export on the original file, just saved as psd.
Can you link to an article with Adobe stating this?
What porn site uses Flash still? The biggest ones all switched to HTML5 compatible some time ago.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
when the user clicks the url, the browser opens the appropriate application for the urltype.
Which means "the appropriate application for the urltype" needs to exist for the user's platform. Not everyone wants to have to make 14 different apps for 14 different platforms, not to mention that several platforms require a long and involved developer pre-approval process. For example, the Flash Lite player in Internet Channel was the only publicly available game development environment for Wii before that console was cracked.
Going to pay to upgrade our apps and pay a few hundred thousand for consultants to test our websites? How nice
http://saveie6.com/
Why do you use IE 8? You should be using IE 6, according to your own sig. IE6 won't be wasting your time with modern YouTube videos, I bet. If that wasn't true, it probably will be true soon...
Program Intellivision!
You mean that the cost savings of rolling out internal websites didn't drive the cost to zero, and there is a small, periodic maintenance cost to this otherwise scalable communication medium? *shock* *horror*
Maybe we should go back to mimeographed inter-office memos. Quick, someone take dictation and get this to the typing pool stat!
Program Intellivision!
Edge Animate exists, but you can't buy it. You have to rent it on Creative Butt.
They have photoshop, which is widely used worldwide by basically everyone involved with any sort of visual media.
And also they're walking on the HTML5 visual editors territory.
The only reason Im using Flash on YT is Google insistence on forcing VP8 on my old Core2 laptop (intel GPU means no hardware video accel).
h.264 with mplayer plays perfectly in 1080p
h.264 with flash plays perfectly in 720p
VP8 with HTML5 stutters in 720p, and still drops frames in 640x480
If/when they finally remove Flash option I will be forced to script direct mplayer streaming of mp4 files from YT server bypassing their player altogether.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
With a proper SLA and a good backup solution it is no more risky than putting your data in any other system. For example, there are thousands of companies who use hosted CRMs for their entire sales workflow, generating billions of dollars in the process. I guess they're all dumb?
Flash was, and is, crap. No iDevice ever had it. And now it is dying. Given the number of iPhones out there, and iPads, etc. I'm not surprised.
I've never installed flash on any machine I've used. I load Chrome for those sites that require flash. And I've not had to use Chrome for months at a time lately. Adobe created a monster and it is dying, finally.
Good riddance.
Debian Wheezy on a i686, 2 gigs ram, 2200 intel core2, nvidia card using nouveau,and with Google Chrome latest stable i went to Youtube and the videos are still showing mixed results, some run smoothly without hitting the CPU much at all, others suck the life out of the CPU @ !00% even worse than compiling source code so my first impression of HTML-5 video is that i am not impressed
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
You appear to claim that both WebGL and Flash are "a giant security hole [that] should be avoided like the plague". If this is true, then which technology should be used instead for two- and three-dimensional vector animation?
Yay exposed and buggy interpreters.
I have the feeling you're about to say "native code". The problem is that native code all too often ends up being made for a platform other than the ones you have available to you.
Shitty video streaming for everyone whether you like it or not! Hurrah!!!
Don't just pretend that your question was always "What authoring tools do I have?" when your question WAS "What do I use instead?".
I was trying to avoid causing the XY problem by asking for tools to perform a step toward the wrong goal. Asking "What are usable authoring tools for animated SVG?" isn't helpful when animated SVG itself isn't a viable technology. So instead, I first asked for the right goal (what tech) and followed up by asking for the right step (what authoring tools). My question in full could have been phrased more formally as follows: "What is the most viable technology to replace SWF, and what are usable authoring tools for said technology whatever it might be?" What is the correct etiquette for asking a question contingent on another question?
what's the preferred way to deploy vector animations
HTML5 could include vector graphics on a canvas
Thank you. Now a follow-up question: Are there any good authoring tools for HTML5 canvas animations that aren't pay-per-month? If so, which?
A lot of Flash animations are likewise sprite-based. Do you know of any good timeline-based sprite animation editors for DHTML or HTML5 Canvas?
without bloating them by a factor of 10 by rendering them to WebM?
Many of the non-interactive videos can be found on Youtube now
That's what I was trying to avoid.
Similarly, most of the game concepts have been replicated in one way or another to various mobile devices.
Many of the mouse-based ones have. But the keyboard-based ones, like the falling object parkour game Tetris'd , wouldn't port very well to an input device that's a flat sheet of glass. I haven't seen a smartphone with a built-in gamepad other than perhaps the outdated, overpriced Xperia Play.
In Photoshop, you can still save back to Photoshop version 3 (that would be 11 versions back). When you do, it flattens any features you may have used that aren't supported in the older versions, but you can still open and modify the files.
At this point, I'm not very concerned with it. 99% of the features are still compatible with CS6, which is the last stand-alone version.
That paid for the FP engineering and QA team. The entire project was pretty much revenue neutral -- and the CC apps (like Flash Pro and DW) were the money makers in that department.
xhamster
xvideos
cam4
So far, HTML5 playback only gives me 360p quality, with no DASH support.
Flash playback gives me 480p, DASH support (so I stop using the network if I hit pause, and don't bloat my browser memory usage on long videos).
HTML playback does give me speed control.
But I can already download a 360p and watch in mplayer/vlc for better speed control if I wanted that.
That paid for the FP engineering and QA team. The entire project was pretty much revenue neutral -- and the CC apps (like Flash Pro and DW) were the money makers in that department.
I wasn't suggesting that Adobe made big money off Player, but what you're saying misses the point. It's free because that way more- *far* more- end users will have it installed, meaning content creators are in turn far more likely to buy the paid apps to create Flash-based content than they would be otherwise.
In short, Player being free is a necessary (or at least incredibly beneficial) aspect of selling CC et al, and should be factored in as part of CC's development cost, not treated as something that has to "pay its own way".
The fact that they made money anyway by weaselling McAfee installs alongside it is beside the point.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
..and yet with all that specialization in storage and value added 'service', we still see daily stories telling us all how they can't keep a few russian/chinese/korean teenage crackers out of their systems and away from their customers' info. Then there's all the lost productivity from employees struggling with all that 3rd rate middleware between them and their tasks. Oh, and how many of these 'service' companies are operating under NSLs?
http://helpx.adobe.com/creativ...
New features added to the desktop applications after CS6 may not be supported in the exported file, or by the CS6 application.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Lest think about this for a moment.
New features are added that aren't supported in older versions. Does this only affect Adobe products? What about products from AutoCAD? Do you think Revit 2006 can do everything Revit 2014 can?
Yes, older products don't gain the functionality of the newer ones, that's why they come out with new product. What was originally said was CC created files wouldn't open in non-CC versions. Having features not available in older products should be expected. I'm not seeing the issue being raised.
The CC files in newer versions cannot be opened, they're in "teh clowd" after all. They need to be 'exported' according to Adobe's documentation. The problem is when Adobe leaves town and your CC files are in "the cloud" and you've been using the product for a few years, how are you going to export them and subsequently import them in other programs.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Im sorry but you are incredibly misinformed about normal usage of CC. When i create a file in CC, everything is done locally on my machine. Could you image having to upload 25meg raw files to "the cloud" each time i open on and from there, opening up 300mb-1gb .psd each time? Did Adobe just give ever user unlimited storage? No body that uses these products on a professional level saves their work to the cloud. That said, the argument about losing files saved the cloud can apply to every single cloud service on the market. Btw, did you see my test i posted? I opened a CC file just fine on another computer running cs5. Also, did you know that that even tho it says Creative Cloud, its still a locally installed app?
For record, I have 3tb of photos at home. I am a photographer. I work in this product daily, do you as well?