Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5 • Hacker News Board

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#51

Post by oolongCat » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change.

We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want.

What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. How long before we see adblockers, anti piracy trackers and basically anything that a company like google will see as a threat get blocked.

Don't give me that "Oh flash has security holes so we are blocking it." Yeh when our governments use this same excuse we are all up in arms, but when a company does this many are okay with it.

The sad sad truth is majority of users are going to fall in line whenever a company decides what's best for them.

And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

tudorw wrote: post #4

cmdrfred wrote: post #2

Why are the top ten sites exempt?

Because the internet is no longer fair :( Things are breaking, I cannot get a mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties, no bounce message just a void, I'm 10/10 on mail-test .com, DMARC, SPF, PTR, no RBL, just m$ don't want me to send email to their users, a private RBL maybe, I cannot know because they don't reply to communications regarding it, nothing to do with this point, except it's asympto…

> I cannot get a mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties

Apparently eShares is having the same problem. Shareholders with Microsoft-affiliated email addresses couldn't accept certificates.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#53

Post by snsr » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

PretzelFisch wrote: post #22

I don't care so much about video, but audio. I can't find a site that streams audio with out flash. This is how this change will affect me.

Soundcloud streams without Flash.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#54

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

Ambroos wrote: post #38

cornedor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including Google's own Google Music, I use Firefox in my daily browsing without Flash installed, when I want to listen to my music i've to start Google Chrome which has Flash by default. The experimental HTML5-audio toggle is always disabled for me.

Play Music always uses HTML5 now, which is why the toggle is not available (but it's indicated badly). You can disable the built-in Flash on chrome://plugins and everything will still work.

[deleted]

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#55

Post by air » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

franciscop wrote: post #17

> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

Netflix begs to differ.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#56

Post by snsr » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

oolongCat wrote: post #51

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change. We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want. What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company…

But Flash is garbage, and has been for a long time.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#57

Post by jcranmer » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #28

BugsBunnySan wrote: post #16

well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

> but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage Yes, it is dishonest of Google to keep referring to 'the Open Web' when 'HTML5 video' is heading towards being simply an enabler for other proprietary plug-ins. The Open Web of binary blobs.

I'm still waiting for Google Hangouts to actually use WebRTC and not require a plugin (or NaCl). Like they promised several years ago.

Google has been really dishonest about their moves to the Open Web.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#58

Post by oolongCat » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

snsr wrote: post #56

oolongCat wrote: post #51

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change. We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want. What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company…

But Flash is garbage, and has been for a long time.

Flash is garbage, yes! I agree, I am talking about these blocking changes as a whole.

Flash while it is indeed a piece of garbage, has done a lot for the internet, there are many places of the internet that are flash dependent.

Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people?

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#59

Post by liveoneggs » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

oolongCat wrote: post #51

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change. We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want. What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company…

because "don't be evil" is great marketing

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#60

Post by acdha » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

BugsBunnySan wrote: post #16

well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video. We can debate other aspects but from a security perspective moving to a small, tightly-scoped module is a big win and that's important when the cost of vulnerabilities is in the billions per year.

It's also somewhat good for the web since both of those platforms are competitors and companies often reuse things they've already invested in.

It is unequivocally bad that it poses a risk to Mozilla but the real problem isn't EME but rather the fact that all of the DRM opposition since the 90s has failed to move public opinion much. As long as customers happily pay for DRMed content and three of the major browsers are made by DRM vendors, the most likely alternative to Flash is a proprietary interface. The fact that EME is standardized at least gives the EFF better grounds for demanding consistent treatment.