Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

bitmovin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 242 posts

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#121

Post by spydum »

stephenr wrote: post #64
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…

I'll see your rant and raise you an exasperated sigh. > We are starting to become a bunch of sheep You might be, but not all of us are. > why are we not pissed off about this About them blocking (but still bundling) flash in 2016? I'd honestly be more questioning why they ever bundled it in the first place. I use Safari and have not installed Flash in.. years. But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's positi…

> But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" - people are pissed off.

I think categorizing it as winners and losers is wrong. As much ribbing as google gets, I think very often, they are using their position of power to make the internet more secure and functional. They won't get it right every time, but I'm happy to see them try.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#123

Post by BatFastard »

gmfawcett wrote: post #112
innix wrote: post #23

This is a real blow to sites that rely on Flash's RTMP for low-latency live streaming. There's no real HTML5 equivalent right now. HLS and MPEG-DASH have a delay of around 30 seconds, often more.

Yes, we depend on Flash for this, too. I worry about Flash disappearing from the ecosystem before HTML5 streaming matures enough to deliver a decent, cross-platform-consistent live-streaming experience.

Just give HTML5 another 10 years to catch up. I am sure it will be ready by then.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#125

Post by fixermark »

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…

In a world where we're ranting about Flash (a non-standard, closed-source web plug-in with a few ad-hoc, reverse-engineered, quite-possibly-illegal alternative implementations) being buried and replaced by a web standard---even a web standard primarily driven by a handful of web development incumbents, but a standard nonetheless---we are truly through the looking glass.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#126

Post by fixermark »

oolongCat wrote: post #58
snsr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The existence of alternative browsers. If your company is relying on Flash, Chrome just put itself out of the running for being your enterprise's solution. By all means, use the browsers you need to get your work done.

The fact this is a price Chrome is willing to pay indicates just how dead Flash is, and how much browser vendors are willing to kill it.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#127

Post by fixermark »

ajharrison wrote: post #118
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…

You don't decide what a company can or can't do if you're not paying for the privilege of using their products.

Functionally, Chrome is "paid for" by userbase. Google has plenty of signal to figure out if this change is going to turn people off from using it.

Looks like they also have signal to suggest it's a gamble worth taking.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#128

Post by fixermark »

wjoe wrote: post #86
Ambroos wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only in Chrome, it still requires Flash in Firefox for some reason. They're using some non-standard way of doing HTML5 Audio as far as I remember, which only works in Chrome. Bug report is here - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911837 - It's been a while since I looked into it and looks like the details have changed recently. At least a quick attempt now tells me "Please refresh this page in your browser…

Is there a standard way of doing HTML5 audio?

By which I mean, a standard that works cross-browser? ;)

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#130

Post by MrZongle2 »

yoz-y wrote: post #105
frozenport wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's their monopoly, they can do what they like.

Except they do not have a monopoly.

That is true. But they are in a position of incredible power.

They have control over a lot of what people see online, by virtue of controlling what people find when they search. They're so ingrained in society that they're a verb. Their staff have had remarkable access to the White House and other government institutions.

No, not a monopoly...but they're not far from potentially becoming one.

Post reply on HN