> <i>DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions.</i><p>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
What bugs me is that Google gave itself a pass by white-listing YouTube - because it turns out some people still need Flash on YouTube. Google should dog-food their own policies.
Google Finance still uses Flash:<p><a href="https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG</a><p>I really wish they didn't leave it to rot.
well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox</a>
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.
This article has the vibe of drawing attention to something else other than the subject of the piece. Is that unfair to say? Not for me to judge I suppose, but the final paragraph says it all.<p>Anyway, a couple of things from the article...<p>> <i>"Netflix have already switched to HTML5...due to the benefits of HTML5 based streaming"</i><p>> <i>"...HTML5 outperforms plugin based playback in almost every department"</i><p>> "<i>...delivering high bandwidth products such as 360° video and Virtual Reality in a more efficient manor.</i>"<p>Such generic statements! Netflix HTML5 playback in both Chrome and Firefox is limited to 720p. That's not a benefit and is why I must use silverlight in IE on Windows 7 to watch 1080p Netflix. They really should cover things like this to better reflect how things actually are.<p>The claims about HTML5 performance over plugins should only come from people who have done side by side comparisons. So many bloggers telling it according to something they read somewhere.<p>Finally, "<i>360° video in a more efficient manor</i>". I like efficient manors, even bad manors, but again this claim should be backed up with evidence. If you look at VR, if you look at 360 video, the evidence for better performance in HTML5 for these technologies is simply not there. Even with still image panoramas, anyone who has made these in something like KrPano will know that Flash panoramas generally outperform HTML5 panoramas. Smoother motion, better memory management, better cross-browser performance. We may wish it weren't so, but we should get facts straight regardless of whether it leaves HTML (which we love) a little bruised in the comparison.
Among other things, it means the final nail in the coffin of hardware accelerated web video on Linux, after Chrome disabled then removed it's working browser implementation.
<a href="https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247</a>
While 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.
<rant><p>Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>The sad sad truth is majority of users are going to fall in line whenever a company decides what's best for them.<p></rant><p>And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting.
But I recently realized flash is now required for google music?<p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png</a><p>It worked fine before they re-wrote it. Now I have to turn on the flash plugin and the whole thing runs slow and feels clunky. Why google?
Funny, HTML5 streaming in Chrome often breaks for me and I have to restart to fix this.<p>Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this reliably, otherwise I'd file a bug.
I'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?<p><i>> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow</i><p>I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's a tool of corrupted groups for standards poisoning, market control and "creative" undemocratic lawmaking.
Steam is still using Flash for their stats page.<p><a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" rel="nofollow">http://store.steampowered.com/stats/</a><p>As others have mentioned, Google finance is as well as well as other finance sites. Makes you wonder how someone haven't introduced any HTML5 graphs for stats yet...
I started to watch a lot of youtube videos recently, but it doesnt seem all of them require EME. Am I wrong? Because it seems I can download them fine with a firefox addon, except a very few of them for obvious copyright reasons. I also rarely see song videos that cannot be downloaded from mp3 conversion websites. No idea if those websites are legal or not.<p>Anyway, on one side you have youtube advertising and adblockers, on the other side they want to force people to stay online and not use the content offline, but they can't have all of them not block ads.<p>I really wonder about the real cost of hosting youtube videos, and the money they make from ads on youtube. I think there is a huge loss there. Youtube RED might solve this.
I hate it when I see people talking about Flash as if it's the Web's cancer. Remember Flash pushed the web heavily forward back when we had to install all sorts of desktop applications and codecs just to watch a video or play a simple game. It is an optional plugin that you can always disable. Not having it at all would lead to a poorer UX in my opinion. Can't Chrome just have a toggle Flash on/off in the toolbar and get over it? And let Flash die naturally, when HTML5 catches up?<p>Edit<p>Also the propaganda [1] against it makes me laugh. The reason Google wants it out is probably because it can't track the ads inside Flash apps.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Google-Mozilla-pull-plug-Adobe-Flash-Tech-giants-disable-program-browsers-following-critical-security-flaw.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Googl...</a><p>"Leaked documents have revealed the program has a serious vulnerability that lets hackers take over anyone's computer."
ok, are Google planning on supporting HLS if they're ditching flash? I see this site is saying that it does (with their player) -- so does it natively or are these guys doing a transmux in Javascript similar to HLS.js and others?
"By the end of this year Chrome will begin ignoring Flash as Google takes another step towards removing the “final Plugin” by replacing Flash with HTML5."<p>The final plugin? What about widevine?
"What does this mean for video"? It means I won't ever have goddamn McAfee Antivirus try to install itself on my computer when I update Flash.