Slashdot Mirror
Google Starts Using HTML5 By Default Instead of Flash For Some Chrome Users (venturebeat.com)
Google announced in a blog post today that it will be rolling out a feature over the next few months that starts disabling Flash and displaying HTML5 content instead on certain websites. Google notes, "This change disables Adobe Flash Player unless there's a user indication that they want Flash content on specific sites, and eventually all websites will require the user's permission to run Flash." VentureBeat reports: Google has deployed the change for half of the people who are using Chrome 56 beta, which rolled out yesterday, Google technical program manager Eric Deily wrote in a blog post. Then, "in the next few days," Deily wrote, the feature will be active for 1 percent of users of Chrome 55 stable. And by February 2016 it will be live for all users in Chrome 56 stable, Deily wrote. The idea is to lessen the dependence on a web component that can cause a drag on CPU and memory usage and shorten battery life as a result. Flash also has a track record of security issues.
Not cool Google. Don't bother asking me. I'm sure you know what I really want.
some sites nearly need flash mostly drm vids. i know there is some work on drm firefox and im sure chrome to has plugins im not really familier with it though.
Getting rid of Flash as a default, loaded-as-needed plugin is a good thing. I mean, it's one of the biggest sources of malware these days - it really shouldn't be allowed to run by default, especially when alternatives exist.
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
They really want to kill Flash? Bury any search results in the back pages *if* they rely on Flash.
Yet you still can only listen to Google Play music WITH THE FLASH PLUGIN!!!!
ugh.
not sure i can wait until february 2016
There's a massive campaign to blame flash for all the Internets security and usability woes without revealing the real reason why every webbie hates flash.
And that reason is, it's trivial to block and ignore. Because people don't want to run app's on a browser, it's a browser.
I went to CNET today to read an article, 1/6th of my screen was taken up by, I shit you not, a re-position-able video player that plays ad's. Half the sites I go to now have pop-up's again and the screen dim's or blurs when it's up, or if I decide "I don't want to watch this stupid video I just want to skim the article and get the details" BAMMO, the video player minimizes to the right lower corner and takes up a third of the article text and plays it's crap anyway. Where's the blocker for that? I hit the stop button. Things are still running and loading in the background. I thought Stop meant Stop?
Java and HTML5 are code-words for long-term projects that mean we're going to develop a way to run fully functional software on the client machine, but do it this time in such a way the client has zero control over it, and then we'll slowly start turning the entire internet and every browsable webpage into an indiscernible mash of fully-personalized psychovisual pornography designed to endorphin-dump the tiny market segment that hasn't become so jaded to advertising that they have had to develop a filter that even their families and friends have difficulty penetrating.
Has HTML5 stopped cryptolocker from loading through java-enabled banner ad's? A MILLION TIMES WORSE than ANY Flash exploit, ever, is the aberration of catching a filesystem encrypting virus through a banner ad.
This is a complete circus. We used to just be able to install flashblock. Now I need to run the f-ing browser in a VM to have any guarantee of safety and security, or completely disable java and run a half dozen plug-in's, several of which as a method of working, report what sites I visit to whomever. Webbies and advertisers need to go through a rehabilitation clinic.
For the love of god, when will flash die already?
So I guess it's been live for about ten months now?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Dupe, dupe, dupe dupe of URL, URL, URL...
I've heard this before, back when Apple and Steve Jobs had his rant on Flash and stopped supplying Flash for Safari in OS X. Yet, here we are today with Flash still around and hopefully Google having a more broad user base with Chrome can finally put Flash to rest. But I seriously have my doubts.
Do the editors know this >.< about the articles they approve?
the wording you should use is "differently ables Flash"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.