Moving Beyond Flash: the Yahoo HTML5 Video Player (streamingmedia.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moving Beyond Flash: the Yahoo HTML5 Video Player (streamingmedia.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday September 25, 2016 @09:39AM from the gone-like-a-Flash dept.

Slashdot reader theweatherelectric writes: Over on Streaming Media, Amit Jain from Yahoo has written a behind-the-scenes look at the development of Yahoo's HTML5 video player. He writes, "Adobe Flash, once the de-facto standard for media playback on the web, has lost favor in the industry due to increasing concerns over security and performance. At the same time, requiring a plugin for video playback in browsers is losing favor among users as well. As a result, the industry is moving toward HTML5 for video playback...

At Yahoo, our video player uses HTML5 across all modern browsers for video playback. In this post we will describe our journey to providing an industry-leading playback experience using HTML5, lay out some of the challenges we faced, and discuss opportunities we see going forward."
Yet another brick in the wall? YouTube and Twitch have already switched to HTML5, and last year Google started automatically converting Flash ads to HTML5.

96 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Taking a page from Microsoft by OneHundredAndTen · 2016-09-25 09:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Coming very late to the party, and probably with nothing but a run-of-the-mill offering. Is Yahoo still relevant?
1. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, Yahoo! is still relevant...just look at how many users lost their personal information in the last two years. (half a billion)
  That said, I'm sure glad we have a privacy protector like Yahoo! to help secure our computers!
2. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Berkyjay · 2016-09-25 09:57 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I bet you it's huge in middle America who have had their emails since the late 90's and still post on Yahoo Answers.
3. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you still call it "flyover country" too, don't you.
4. Re: Taking a page from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you've never left your mother's basement.
5. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's called Dumbfuckistan.
6. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by jrumney · 2016-09-25 13:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They are trying to leverage all the publicity they are getting from the password hack by showing everyone that they are still capable of keeping up with the state of web development in 2011.
7. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? I thought that was the whole continental USA.
8. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by lsatenstein · 2016-09-26 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I bet you it's huge in middle America who have had their emails since the late 90's and still post on Yahoo Answers.
  I am a yahoo.com user, and I have been doing so for ages, certainly before Gmail. I left hotmail for yahoo years ago.
  Any internet site today is not guaranteed to be protected from hackers. The Democratic party, and I bet the government and military servers have long ago been hacked.
  Yes, they got names, addresses, etc, but only encrypted passwords. And if gmail was hacked, I guarantee that you would not hear ever that it occurred.
  I like the yahoo.com interface. I feel more comfortable with it than with gmail or hotmail. Its my preference. My address book is just available to the hackers as it was made available to facebook or linked in or other site that wants to give me service in exchange for access to the email address book.
  I am also willing to bet that the hack provided access to that number of names, but that that number were not retrieved. Can that number of names fit onto a 6 terabyte drive?
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
9. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by Karlt1 · 2016-09-26 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  According to Alexa, Yahoo ranks #5 globally. Wikipedia is #6. So Yahoo is still relevant.
10. Re:Taking a page from Microsoft by ananamouse · 2016-09-28 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Renamed to Deploraville.
  I am a Deploravillain...
lolwut? by Desler · 2016-09-25 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

What challenges? Was typing:
<video controls><source src=""></video>
really that hard?
1. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  LOL, pretty much true... I've worked with self-important web developers that made huge deals of little things( mainly out of ignorance ) and threw fits if their favorite JS-library wasn't part of the project, so I can see how some will make a bigger deal of this than it really is, but I guess it's their form of job security...
2. Re:lolwut? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-09-25 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Especially since most, though not all, of the flash-using sites have been using a flash player to display an .flv or .mp4 served over HTTP anyway, since flash's DRM was mostly too pitiful to bother with and HTTP is more likely than RTMP or similar to Just Work with the various bits and pieces of your web infrastructure.
  
  There might be some nontrivial changes(though mostly from more exotic to less exotic, so not hugely interesting) if you were going from RTMP or a similar streaming oriented format to serving up video files over HTTP; but the 'produce own ugly and nonstandard controls; do some weaksauce obfuscation to annoy people trying to get an offline copy of the video' is not terribly exciting.
3. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  If you want HLS, then that alone isn't good enough.
  Bringing HLS, reliably, to all modern browsers is actually a very complex problem.
4. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you Apple...
5. Re:lolwut? by spongman · 2016-09-25 17:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Was typing ... really that hard?
  yeah, that's fine if you want your video to work only sometimes, on some devices. and if you don't need pre-rolls, or interstitials, or playlists, or analytics, or you don't care about handling full-screen correctly, or adaptive bitrate.
  pop quiz: which versions of firefox support h.264? which protocol suports bitrate streaming on google chrome on windows? on iPad?
6. Re:lolwut? by spongman · 2016-09-25 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  it's job security because if they took your advice and assumed they were smarter than everyone else and just went with what they thought would work... they would have failed abysmally. they would be assigned to cleaning the toilets while someone who knew what they were talking about was put in charge of actually doing it right.
7. Re:lolwut? by sexconker · 2016-09-25 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Was the embed tag really that hard? I'd really prefer the browser defer to plugins that I could choose to NOT INSTALL at all, or defer to the OS.
  Bloating up the browser is dumb. It's all the bad of plugins, loaded all the time, without the option to rip them out. How many security updates does Chrome or Firefox or IE have every year?
8. Re:lolwut? by Desler · 2016-09-26 00:15 · Score: 2
  
  and if you don't need pre-rolls, or interstitials, or playlists, or analytics,
  
  You're correct. I don't need any of that. All off that is just bullshit added in to annoy the person trying to watch a video.
9. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  I don't need {thing}, therefore, no one needs {thing}!
10. Re:lolwut? by Jahta · 2016-09-26 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What challenges? Was typing:
  <video controls><source src=""></video>
  really that hard?
  Unfortunately that's too simple for many sites. They want to wrap "added value" around the video.
11. Re:lolwut? by quetwo · 2016-09-26 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. But the hard things are :
  - Ads, and tracking their placement, etc.
  - Encrypted Content (most content producers don't want their content streamed unencrypted -- and that causes issues for vanilla browser deployments)
  - Streaming (this becomes less trivial if you are looking to utilize existing infrastructure to stream to the browser).
  And these are why HTML5 video is still slow to roll out. Once the HTML5 spec had a basic video player, everybody moved onto the next shiny object and left the rest so everybody had to come up with their own solution.
12. Re:lolwut? by Desler · 2016-09-26 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the proliferation of tools to block most of those things, it's not just me.
13. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  adaptive bitrate
  How about providing just an HD switch and let browsers buffer as much as they please instead of trying to be smart by switching to garbage resolutions?
14. Re:lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  - Ads, and tracking their placement, etc.
  need to die
  
  - Encrypted Content
  aka DRM -- needs to die
  
  - Streaming
  not related to player UI. It's a serverside problem, and a solved one
15. Re:lolwut? by spongman · 2016-09-26 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  right, but you know who might need that?
  one of the largest ad networks on the planet? or maybe the 4th most popular video web site, with approximate 125M monthly visitors?
  besides. the claim that you don't need a feature doesn't mean that your solution is significant. you didn't address any of the other things that you "solution" completely fails to address.
  you're just digging yourself deeper into the hole here. your first post showed you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. and you're not making it any better for yourself.
16. Re:lolwut? by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  adaptive bitrate
  How about providing just an HD switch and let browsers buffer as much as they please instead of trying to be smart by switching to garbage resolutions?
  Because you may not have the bandwidth to stream HD, and most users prefer lower resolutions they can play in real time instead of an HD stream which will buffer for a long time, then pause the video when it runs out of buffer.
17. Re:lolwut? by spongman · 2016-09-26 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  pop quiz: calculate the buffering time for a 90minute 15Mbps stream if you're on a 1Mbps connection.
1 question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 09:57 · Score: 1

How do I watch South Park without flash player?
1. Re:1 question by ITRambo · 2016-09-25 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  On a television.
-Still- looking at you, BBC... by mccalli · 2016-09-25 09:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

BBC still requires Flash on my desktop Safari. Switch the user-agent to being an iPad and presto - nice, working HTML 5 video without a single layout change either. Have sent in 'feedback' time after time after time.

Honestly, get with the times and dump Flash. Or at least service HTML 5 for preference and only fall back to Flash. Not this "let's serve Flash to HTML 5-capable browsers" rubbish.
1. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by toonces33 · 2016-09-25 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice if VMWare were to dump using flash as well. That's the major reason I still have it at work.
2. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure the demo'd and HTML5 client at VMWorld
3. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by jonwil · 2016-09-25 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  ABC iView here in Australia also still requires Flash :(
4. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by swb · 2016-09-25 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  They have some lame and limited HTML5 front end for vCenter now. 6.5 or 7 or whatever the new version is supposed to be called will supposedly have a HTML5 client. I don't know if its been released or not.
5. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Billly+Gates · 2016-09-25 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Or dump Safari the IE 6 of this decade?
  It lacks many HTML 5 features and mac users never upgrade and still use 2009 snow leopard with Safari 4 which makes IE look cutting edge in comparison. I saw a statistic a year or two ago showing 1/3 of Mac users had ancient versions of Mac OSx.
  Use Chrome
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
6. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  why are you using desktop safari?
7. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  or opera
  or vivaldi
8. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because you give blowjobs behind Starbucks.
9. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/html5 and opt in. Its working for me.
10. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by sexconker · 2016-09-25 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I still need the desktop client to use VMWare Update Manager.
11. Re:-Still- looking at you, BBC... by swb · 2016-09-25 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than that, you still need a Windows server running Update Manager components and the Windows client to install updates.
  I think the switch from a heavyweight thick management ESX to ESXi was a good idea, but the problem is that it leaves all management capability needing a VM or external server with all the associated availability problems a single point of failure.
  Frankly, I'd like to see ESXi re-thickened a bit to include vCenter management into the base install with master/slave clustering and a distributed database. This would improve vCenter availability and reduce the dependence on a separate VM.
  Every new host would then be a potential vCenter cluster management participant. Upgrading a node across version boundary would upgrade vCenter, so as the cluster was upgraded the vCenter upgrade came with the package.
  The downside would be that it would require more storage for the base image, breaking more than a few tiny SD/USB installs. The write rate of vCenter may be a bit much for the media used in these flash installs, but not by much and if server motherboards start shipping with M.2 slots the capacity and write durability shouldn't be issues.
12. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  There is a good reason users don't upgrade their OSX version: new OSX versions always break... everything. Apple software is painful to use.
13. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Pro tip, don't watch the abc you lefttard.
  #trump2016
14. Re: -Still- looking at you, BBC... by jonwil · 2016-09-26 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell does Donald Trump or #trump2016 have to do with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and its iView catch-up TV service?
Yahoo is ... the story? by gavron · 2016-09-25 10:02 · Score: 1

The big players moved to HTML5 ages ago. Yahoo is the latest example of a no-longer meaningful Internet property being auctioned off to whomever will buy it (Verizon Wireless). Its relevance passed years ago and what it does or does not do -- long after the industry has already moved there -- is not of any relevance.
I'm happy someone listens to their PR and submits slashdot stories about it. It would otherwise be a boring day without humorous articles.
E
1. Re:Yahoo is ... the story? by spongman · 2016-09-26 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  > The big players moved to HTML5 ages ago.
  define "ages ago".
  firefox only started supporting html5 netflix in 12/2015.
2. Re:Yahoo is ... the story? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, more than a year ago is AGES in Internet world.
  FF - two years ago.
  Chrome - two years ago.
  Yahoo - not even a browser.
  E
Yahoo has videos? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 10:30 · Score: 0

What kind of video content does Yahoo host?
1. Re:Yahoo has videos? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-09-25 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Spam.
2. Re:Yahoo has videos? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 11:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "What kind of video content does Yahoo host?
  Advertising. The article does a lot of handwaving, and there are boxes filled with smaller boxes, and those smaller boxes are filled with gibberish. Other than one football game just once, the only content that they specifically address is advertising.
  "The second challenge involved advertising. While content video playback has shifted to HTML5, most video advertisers continue to rely on Flash..."
  Oh the poor dears; Yahoo must make sure that HTML5 advertising is as thoroughly obnoxious as Flash advertising, otherwise we won't appreciate the full advertising experience.
  "For my ally is the Advertising, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Advertising is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."
  (Preceding brought to you by "Star Trek- The Motion Picture")
3. Re:Yahoo has videos? by Yvan256 · 2016-09-25 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
4. Re:Yahoo has videos? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks, very informative! If I had mod points....
Distraction by alantus · 2016-09-25 10:47 · Score: 1

The timing of this announcement tells me they are trying to distract us from something.
Is the protocol really the problem? by Snotnose · 2016-09-25 11:09 · Score: 1

Or is it the implementation of the protocol?

I've written parsers for both MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, and while I never actually looked I never saw any security problems with either. I'm guessing Flash is the same way. The protocol is fine, the implementation is problematic.
1. Re:Is the protocol really the problem? by AHuxley · 2016-09-25 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  It can depend on the funding. National broadcasters have region locked sites with set DRM that is contract friendly with content owners and producers.
  Some sites like the hardware support for mic, cam.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by BenFenner · 2016-09-25 12:05 · Score: 1

I'd love to ditch flash and use the HTML 5 player on YouTube, however they are using a whitelist to decide who can see HD content on YouTube with the HTML 5 player, and in their infinite hubris, Pale Moon is not on their whitelist. When will this user-agent sniffing/whitelist bullshit ever end?!
1. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah no. There is no reason why YouTube can't provide 1080 video without requiring MSE. They have every right to choose to do so, but they don't have to.
  As for Firefox vs PaleMoon, I choose to use PaleMoon specifically because it's a better version of Firefox. You seem to be implying the opposite is true.
2. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Snotnose · 2016-09-25 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  My problem with HTML5 is you can't jump around in the video reliably. Lets say it's a 5 minute vid, you're 2 minutes in and "whoa, what was that?", try to go back 10 seconds and you get the loading screen. Or you're 2 minutes in, bored, jump ahead a minute, and get the loading screen. Or 2 minutes in, someone knocks on your door, you pause, open it a few minutes later and get the loading screen.
  
  doesn't help HTML5 seems to load at the speed of play. Forget about watching the first minute, getting bored, and jumping ahead 2 minutes.
  
  And I can't seem to stop the auto-play videos no matter what web-sites google sends me to nor which settings I set. Autoplay video? Close the tab. Don't care what the content was, autoplay video is an automatic close the tab.
  
  Oh yeah. Win10, fully patched, Chrome, latest version.
3. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be implying the opposite is true.
  No. I was explicitly stating that the opposite is true. You should try Firefox. It's good.
4. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  Citizen, you're not suppoosed to stop autoplay, skip inside the video and things like that. Think of the advertisers!
5. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by ChoGGi · 2016-09-26 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Can I install an unsigned extension without jumping through hoops?
6. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Sure can. Read about it.
7. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by ChoGGi · 2016-09-26 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  "Firefox Release and Beta versions will not have any way to disable signature checks."
  ^^ hoops
8. Re:YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  That's right. Use the Developer or Nightly versions. As I said, read about it.
Facebook by darkain · 2016-09-25 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oddly enough, Facebook has reverted from HTML5 back to Flash for their desktop site. This is highly odd, considering they support video on non-flash-enabled mobile devices. This is extremely frustrating trying to see videos from friends and then be notified I cannot, due to lack of flash, although it worked a month or two ago.
1. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 12:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's likely because they added live video. The way the handle live broadcasts likely doesn't work well with current HTML5 tech.
2. Re:Facebook by markus · 2016-09-25 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  I would vote you up if I could. There are in fact real technical problems with showing life content in HTML5 videos. And while there are a couple of proposals on how to address this issue, there is so far no consensus among browser makers. I expect things to get better quickly, as all major browsers are rapidly moving away from Flash. But for a small numbers of specific use cases, HTML5 does not quite have an adequate answer.
  The bad news is that this will be painful for the smallish number of affected web developers. The good news is that most of the problem cases have been identified and are actively being worked on
3. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are in fact real technical problems with showing life content in HTML5 videos.
  Live video works fine in HTML5 on YouTube. Live video also works fine in WebRTC. So what precisely are these alleged "real technical problems"?
4. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  The media people having severe Apple myopia, and thus hung up on using HLS for all their streaming...
5. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, HTML5 handles live broadcasts. If you want to see an example of how great HTML5 live video looks, check out Twitter's Thursday Night Football stream. Not affiliated with Twitter at all, but the engineering team behind that did an outstanding job.
  Youtube also streams HTML5 live video constantly.
6. Re:Facebook by spongman · 2016-09-27 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  this is because Facebook is an ad network - you & your friends are the product. Facebook sells your eyes to their customers, and if their customers want to show you flash pre-rolls and interstitials, then that's exactly what Facebook will use. Money talks.
Yahoo too by jmhysong · 2016-09-25 12:57 · Score: 1

"..has lost favor in the industry due to increasing concerns over security..."
1. Re:Yahoo too by ITRambo · 2016-09-25 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yahoo is the Internet equivalent of a store that was completely looted. There are only broken packages on the floor. The store manager orders a new video camera to prove he's sincere about security. Yahoo has already been cleaned out. Anything they do for now that is useful, will improve their image.
Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 12:57 · Score: 0

Wasn't it Steve Jobs that fired the starting pistol on this trend?
1. Re:Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, Steve Jobs simply reacted to the fact that Flash has always been crap. Macromedia started the whole thing.
2. Re:Steve Jobs by Kohath · 2016-09-25 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  The same people who are complaining about no headphone jack this year were complaining about Flash not being supported then.
3. Re:Steve Jobs by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  HTML5 works better than Flash, but a headphone jack works a lot better than having no headphone jack.
This isn't a huge deal by Jack9 · 2016-09-25 13:21 · Score: 2

> In this post we will describe our journey to providing an industry-leading playback experience using HTML5
In other words, a regular html5 player with ads enabled. Their mystery recommendation engine is the hardest part (depending on how complicated they make the VAST/VPAID).

--

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
But still flash is the only thing that networks... by mark-t · 2016-09-25 15:21 · Score: 1

... will stream with from their website.
I would love to be rid of flash forever, but there remains a small but distinct subset of websites for which I do not have any legal alternative for the content they provide that insist upon sticking with it... until hell freezes over as far as I can tell.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
HTML5 aint ready. by Altrag · 2016-09-25 16:41 · Score: 1

Main thing its missing is a working video blocker so that videos will start playing when I want them to, not as soon as a tab is loaded. Right now I have like 3 or 4 different extensions loaded purely to try and prevent autoplaying videos and it still doesn't get them all. So annoying.
1. Re:HTML5 aint ready. by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  +1 to the "why can't I stop videos from autoplaying" problem. Those extensions force frequent browser upgrades too, as apparently the latest "Disable HTML5 Autoplay" extension usually requires the very latest Chrome. It's an immature field that is still under rapid development. And dammit, I'm sometimes working on a slow link, or have limited data. I don't want that link clogged trying to download a video I have no intention of playing. I don't want a "no autoplay" half-measure -- I don't want my browser to download the video file. It's MY browser, why can't that be my decision? This was the one and only saving grace of flash: it was so easy to block.
  What next? HTML5 tracking cookies to get around user privacy settings the same way flash cookies were?
  And HTML5 is the primary reason why I finally installed NoScript.
I never understood that video player business. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-25 18:17 · Score: 1

Why don't just provide a link to the video and let *me* use the video player of my choice? Why force-feed the users some "experience", conceived in the darkest corners of a sick web designer's phantasy?
I, for one am glad for cclive and youutube-dl. Other than youtube, if I can find a link to the video hidden somewhere in a crappy javascript mess whithin the page source, I download it. If not -- I just don't see the video.
1. Re:I never understood that video player business. by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't just provide a link to the video and let *me* use the video player of my choice?
  
  1) Flash was everywhere. It was reliably installed, and every flash doohickey in a web site would include a link to install flash if your computer didn't already have it. Video would never caught on if it had to be up to the end user. Half the web users don't want to go to some random video player site to install it, especially if they're just on a library computer, or they want to send a video link to grandma, etc.
  2) Sorry, as much as you want your own presentation, none of the web sites that serve content want you to leave their website to view that content. It's shooting themselves in the foot, and it's their content and their decision.
  3) Your media player is under your control. If ads are necessary to pay for the content and bandwidth, then sites are going to want to make sure you're using a player that can't skip ads. #2 applies here too.
One thing... by XSportSeeker · 2016-09-25 20:48 · Score: 1

That's at least one thing Yahoo has over so many news websites, entertainment networks portals, and CRUNCHYROLL I'M LOOKING AT YOU.
YouTube? Who cares about YouTube? by OpenSourced · 2016-09-25 22:12 · Score: 0

I only kept Flash for accessing absolute basic-needs sites. The moment xvideos switched to html5, I de-installed Flash and never looked back.

--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Dead Horse Beating.flv by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-09-25 23:52 · Score: 1

...and last year Google started automatically converting Flash ads to HTML5.
Spiffy. Now Google needs to build a plug-in that works with NWS radar loops as they still require Flash.
Re: YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-09-26 01:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, I run Chromium without Flash and I can't play most YouTube video. I checked their HTML5 page and I've got everything but h.264 support and nuthin'. Not even Google likes Google's codecs.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re: YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 04:48 · Score: 0

Try finding a copy of WidevineCdm
Re: YouTube has a long way to go with HTML5 player by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-26 12:29 · Score: 0

Not even Google likes Google's codecs.
I don't have Flash installed and most of the YouTube videos I watch use VP9 (right click on the video and select "Stats for Nerds" to see which codec is used). VP9 does work better than H.264. YouTube didn't roll out VP9 support for the fun of it. I use Firefox so maybe switch to that for better YouTube viewing.