Sad that shumway isn't mature enough yet to replace Flash completely, else this could have been a seamless change
Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
161–170 of 242 posts
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix can make its own app, outside the web.
Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app. Because it can use Microsoft's unsandboxed PlayReady DRM, it can play 1080p video while Chrome and Firefox can only play 720p. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...
I believe, but can't remember offhand, that Netflix will do 1080p in Edge as well.
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#163I've heard that many CDNs are still lagging to adopt DASH, and it causes a major problem for any service which wants to implement HTML5 video (DASH + Media Source Extensions). How does it work for Youtube, do they simply run their own CDN? > DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's…
Maybe I'm naïve or not seeing something here but DASH looks like something you can do by storing a couple of files somewhere and setting a MIME type [0]? What's special about DASH that CDNs need to specially support it? Or are you talking about services that handle transcoding video and such as well? [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/DASH_Adapt...
From what I understood, CDN is needed to lift the heavy load from the source servers. Without them you'd be hammered by heavy traffic, and not only that, the route to the end user will be most likely longer.
DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from the client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure (including codecs and etc.). I don't know the details exactly, but it's far from trivial. May be someone can explain what the difficulty is in detail.
Currently CDNs support HLS and Adobe's adaptive streaming, both of which aren't open standards and aren't part of HTML5 video.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Ado...
Without DASH support in CDN, you can't scale your service, and to get rid of Flash and Adobe's adaptive streaming you need DASH + MSE. That's how I understood it at least.
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#164Google Finance still uses Flash: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG I really wish they didn't leave it to rot.
So does Google Music, you need Chrome if you want to use it without Flash and even then it doesn't work immediately. http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music-st...
Google Play Music uses MSE (Media Source Extensions) to stream MP3. Firefox doesn't support MP3 in MSE streams. Google Play Music could use AAC or Opus in MSE, like YouTube does, but they prefer MP3 because some Android devices have MP3 hardware decoders that (may!) use less battery power than software decoders.
YouTube encodes all their content with in multiple formats: AAC and Opus, H.264 and VP9. I don't know why Google Play Music can't encode their music streams in both MP3 and Opus. They would save on bandwidth by using Opus.
Here is the Firefox bug to add support for MP3 in MSE: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#165Getting 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.
Chrome isn't googles product. The people using their services are. Didn't you get the memo?
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Every tyrant claims to be doing things "for the greater good".
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#167Google Finance still uses Flash: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG I really wish they didn't leave it to rot.
So does Google Music, you need Chrome if you want to use it without Flash and even then it doesn't work immediately. http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music-st...
Hmm it works on chromium without flash. I wonder what chromium is doing that firefox isn't doing.
EDIT: Tested this out on opera and it works fine. Does it have anything to do with blink?
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"Open Web" includes online commerce. It's still open even though people use HTTPS-encrypted data streams, for example.
Browser makers don't need to get a certification to use HTTPS.
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? ;)
Google Play Music uses MSE (Media Source Extensions) to stream MP3. Firefox doesn't support MP3 in MSE streams. Google Play Music could use AAC or Opus in MSE, like YouTube does, but they prefer MP3 because some Android devices have MP3 hardware decoders that (may!) use less battery power than software decoders.
YouTube encodes all their content with in multiple formats: AAC and Opus, H.264 and VP9. I don't know why Google Play Music can't encode their music streams in both MP3 and Opus. They would save on bandwidth by using Opus.
Here is the Firefox bug to add support for MP3 in MSE: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485
Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
#170While the focus is rightly on video, there are a huge number of games written in flash. In the short term this s probably a hug boost for unity... But as flash dies there will be a lot of games that die with it.
... and chat rooms