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.
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?
Without Flash, what's the preferred way to deploy vector animations of the sort seen on Homestar Runner, Weebl's Stuff, Newgrounds, Dagobah, and Albino Blacksheep, without bloating them by a factor of 10 by rendering them to WebM?
Better question.
Who cares?
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.
Javascript and SVG. How good the authoring applications are for them, on the other hand, I am not sure. Flash, may still have the better authoring tools?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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
Ads are actually coming from Google's ContentID. ContentID scans uploaded media against signatures. The signatures are of licensed artwork like f.e. "Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up" - so if you are Rick Astley and upload your signature video to Google then you can set policy if somebody f.e. posts video in which the licensed artwork is used and ContentID matches it. The policy can be AFAIK to: just inform you about match but do nothing; block the content entirely or display an ad before the content - the revenue from ads goes partialy to Google and to Rick Astley. So here is why sometimes you have ads on YouTube and sometimes not. IMO it is a fair system.
> Now if google would just announce no more flash allowed in ads, we'd be set.
If you are using Chrome you can set "Click to play" policy for all plugins in chrome://settings/content - as result you won't see any Flash ads (or any other plugins) without clicking on the placeholder. This way you get rid of Flash ads and it is also way more secure to just do not run plugins if you don't explicitly want to. You can also turn on plugins on a white list per site basis.
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.
The sites the parent mentioned are all based around animated Flash videos. That's the draw, not some silly menu stuff. Whether you find those sites annoying, though, is up to you.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
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
Anyone dumb enough to depend on cloud services for critical workflow deserves what they get.
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.
https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Magic Actions for YouTube
Check box the following:
Stop Autoplay
Don't stop when in a playlist
Speed Booster - Better video preloading / buffering
Simple, when the user clicks the url, the browser opens the appropriate application for the urltype. That's how it should be anyway.
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).
The problem really isn't and hasn't ever been animation sites. The problem is that Flash has often been used where it doesn't belong; forms on business sites, ENTIRE web sites built using flash so you cannot bookmark a page, and stuff like that, and Flash doesn't work particularly well on touch screens. Like BLINK, Flash has been used and abused to the point where it is an abomination.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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?
Now if google would just announce no more flash allowed in ads, we'd be set.
Why would you willingly watch ads?
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.
All I care about is can we lose the ads?
Actually this is going to make things worse.
When the annoying, music playing, flashing punch the monkey ads were in flash, it was trivial to block them using something like flashblock because you simply stopped the plugin from running.
Now adblockers are going to have to parse the code making it very easy for ads to avoid detection and masquerade as content.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
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
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?
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.