YouTube's Video Pick Spells Doom For Adobe Flash

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let's all bid a fond farewell to Adobe Flash. This has been a long time coming but we can't say we are sad to see you go. :D

"We're now defaulting to the HTML5 player on the Web," said YouTube engineering manager Richard Leider in a blog post Tuesday. It took four years for Google to make the HTML5 change, which is a major victory for Web standards fans who've strived to eject proprietary plug-ins from the Web.
Click to expand...
 
Kind of wondering what took so long. There's still tons of Flash out there though. It will take a number of years before it's mostly gone from the desktop world.
 
I stoped using flash on youtube for months now. For some reason, when I flash video, it stutter for 1 second randomly -.-;
 
html5 doesn't look HD even when set to 1080, it also looks kind of blurry, this is in Chrome too
 
heatlesssun said:
Kind of wondering what took so long.
Click to expand...

They had to wait until this happened in August 2014. It's the addition of an API to HTML5 which allows video to be wrapped in any form of DRM. The other reasons were details, the lack of DRM support in HTML5 was the big showstopper and that just got fixed.
 
evilsofa said:
They had to wait until this happened in August 2014. It's the addition of an API to HTML5 which allows video to be wrapped in any form of DRM. The other reasons were details, the lack of DRM support in HTML5 was the big showstopper and that just got fixed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about this being addressed.
 
can't wait for flash to die
 
Now all they need to do is make the experience the same across all browsers. Firefox doesn't have the same resolution options as Chrome on many videos
 
Flatline said:
Great, now let me disable DASH...
Click to expand...

Been asking for that for a long time. I doubt it'll happen. It's especially annoying if you're connected over WiFi that isn't super fast. You'll catch up. I liked before where I could pause and let it preload.
 
now they need to make the html player behave like the flash player.

I prefer the flash player because it does instant quality changes. You don't have to watch the first 15 seconds of the video in low quality until it finally switches over (or anytime you do a quality switch)---like you do with the html player.

I think the general video quality issues are more an issue with recent encoding changes made by youtube. Not the html video codec itself. Sometime around April last year, they made changes so that video with a lot of motion is lower quality than it used to be. Lots of pixel crawl and smearing.
 
Cryptic1911 said:
Now all they need to do is make the experience the same across all browsers. Firefox doesn't have the same resolution options as Chrome on many videos
Click to expand...

I think thats Firefox issue, not youtubes. Same reason as why 60fps does not work. Firefox only has some features (media source extensions or something) partially supported and they are disabled by default. You can turn them on at about:config but results can be glitchy.
 
chameleoneel said:
now they need to make the html player behave like the flash player.

I prefer the flash player because it does instant quality changes. You don't have to watch the first 15 seconds of the video in low quality until it finally switches over (or anytime you do a quality switch)---like you do with the html player.

I think the general video quality issues are more an issue with recent encoding changes made by youtube. Not the html video codec itself. Sometime around April last year, they made changes so that video with a lot of motion is lower quality than it used to be. Lots of pixel crawl and smearing.
Click to expand...

I just change the resolution manually then click on the video slider...instantly changes. What I miss is being able to simply add "&hd=1" to the video to get 720p. On my computer, that's good enough.

To the person who said HTML5 isn't as good as flash, I'm not sure it matters. I suspect it's the same video file bundled into the HTML file, but I'm not an HTML expert. I've never noticed a difference in quality, and I've D/L a few HTML 5 videos.
 
I had to Refresh IE 11 by going to the Gear on the Right side internet options then Rest to get the volume control back on YouTube.
 
Good, at least it won't freeze my Firefox on my Surface Pro now when I try to pause or move the scan in a video.
 
I run windows 98 se with KernelEx. Firefox 2.0.0.20 is my default browser. I have the ability to set the user-agent to any one of several hundred different strings, but for right now it's set to default. I have flash version 10.3.183.86 installed. I'm using that browser (and, I guess, flash) right now to watch videos on youtube.

Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?
 
Sum~Guy said:
I run windows 98 se with KernelEx. Firefox 2.0.0.20 is my default browser. I have the ability to set the user-agent to any one of several hundred different strings, but for right now it's set to default. I have flash version 10.3.183.86 installed. I'm using that browser (and, I guess, flash) right now to watch videos on youtube.

Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?
Click to expand...

:eek: Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?
 
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.
 
I know playback has really sucked on YouTube lately. Whatever they need to do to fix it, especially if that means ditching flash.

How can you force it to use HTML5 ?
 
adobe flash is bullshit nowadays anyway, either it never works because of required updates or it is updating all the time
 
Sum~Guy said:
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.
Click to expand...

I really hope you don't run an IT shop anywhere where sensitive data is stored.
 
Sum~Guy said:
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.
Click to expand...

I bet your tinfoil hat is glorious.
 
Comixbooks said:
I had to Refresh IE 11 by going to the Gear on the Right side internet options then Rest to get the volume control back on YouTube.
Click to expand...

I've been having a lot of problems lately with YouTube crashing my sound services.

It's so common at this point I have a batch file to restart sound services.

Code: 
net stop audiosrv
net stop AudioEndpointBuilder
net start audiosrv
net start AudioEndpointBuilder

Depending on install, the last one (start AudioEndpointBuilder) may or may not be necessary as the start Audiosrv (for me at least) kicks the endpoint builder off as well.
 
Flash never bugged me until Adobe started using their automatic updater to trick end users into installing extra junk. So for all my customers I had to either disable flash updates and deal with that security headache or constantly deal with all the junk that they would let flash install. I personally wish they would have gone with Silverlight instead of HTML5.
 
Sum~Guy said:
Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?
Click to expand...

Flash is the platform on which all manner of Flash objects run. Flash Player plays Flash videos, which are just some of the possible flash objects. Shockwave can use more of those flash objects and be more interactive, and thus is more used for game development.
 
Sum~Guy said:
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.
Click to expand...

Okay, interesting. Thanks for the reply. *backs away slowly* :eek:
 
Flash has always worked for me and optimized for older systems but historically it's had so many security holes that it's probably better laid to rest.
 
nilepez said:
I just change the resolution manually then click on the video slider...instantly changes. What I miss is being able to simply add "&hd=1" to the video to get 720p. On my computer, that's good enough.

To the person who said HTML5 isn't as good as flash, I'm not sure it matters. I suspect it's the same video file bundled into the HTML file, but I'm not an HTML expert. I've never noticed a difference in quality, and I've D/L a few HTML 5 videos.
Click to expand...

yes, it will typically change the quality of the video AFTER the point at which you clicked. But usually it will already have buffered a chunk from the beginning of the video. Running the slider back to the beginning of the video does not ovewrite the pre-buffered, low quality video. When using the HTML viewer. In Flash, it does overwrite, so you can watch the entire video in HD, without much fuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top