Adobe Flash Player Now Sandboxed in Safari on OS X Mavericks

[Michael Goff]

Well, both.

I really don't know what the benefit is for them to continue supporting it. Maybe their poor HTML5 performance is key. Yes, yes, it has the features. But run an HTML5 video, for example, on both Safari and Chrome. I find that one lags less, and that isn't the Chrome version. Or maybe it's because continuing to keep Flash alive is easier on them. They don't have to do much of anything, just keep updating Pepper Flash.

As for why I'm saying it... well, let's look at the facts. They're still shipping Chrome with Flash pre-installed. That's not something that has changed. That's not likely something that will change. Then we move on to their website, YouTube, and we see that HTML5 is an 'also ran'. It won't even run embedded YouTube videos from my experience. And it's still being tested! Years after they started the test, they're nowhere closer to actually finishing it.

 

[simon48]

I really don't know what the benefit is for them to continue supporting it. Maybe their poor HTML5 performance is key. Yes, yes, it has the features. But run an HTML5 video, for example, on both Safari and Chrome. I find that one lags less, and that isn't the Chrome version. Or maybe it's because continuing to keep Flash alive is easier on them. They don't have to do much of anything, just keep updating Pepper Flash.

As for why I'm saying it... well, let's look at the facts. They're still shipping Chrome with Flash pre-installed. That's not something that has changed. That's not likely something that will change. Then we move on to their website, YouTube, and we see that HTML5 is an 'also ran'. It won't even run embedded YouTube videos from my experience. And it's still being tested! Years after they started the test, they're nowhere closer to actually finishing it.

I agree, but I don't really think Google will artificially prolong Flash, I think they'll be one of the first to push really hard for HTML5 once it becomes a fully valid replacement for Flash.

 

[Michael Goff]

I agree, but I don't really think Google will artificially prolong Flash, I think they'll be one of the first to push really hard for HTML5 once it becomes a fully valid replacement for Flash.

Except, for video, it already is. And they're still continuing to have Flash be the first. They're still not letting HTML5 view embedded. I still need a plug-in just to make it run HTML5. It isn't ads anymore, it used to be. The few videos I've watched that didn't have to be converted by the plug-in did have ads.

 

[simon48]

Except, for video, it already is. And they're still continuing to have Flash be the first. They're still not letting HTML5 view embedded. I still need a plug-in just to make it run HTML5. It isn't ads anymore, it used to be. The few videos I've watched that didn't have to be converted by the plug-in did have ads.

What plug-ins? The whole point of HTML5 video is you don't need plug-ins. Of course they're still using flash for Youtube, like I said they don't consider it a fully valid replacement for Flash yet.

 

[Michael Goff]

What plug-ins? The whole point of HTML5 video is you don't need plug-ins. Of course they're still using flash for Youtube, like I said they don't consider it a fully valid replacement for Flash yet.

A plug-in to force HTML5 videos.

And... how is it not a valid replacement yet? Videos load faster, they look just as good, there isn't a single downside to flipping the switch and making the fall-back be flash (on the off chance your browser doesn't support HTML5 video).

 

[simon48]

A plug-in to force HTML5 videos.

And... how is it not a valid replacement yet? Videos load faster, they look just as good, there isn't a single downside to flipping the switch and making the fall-back be flash (on the off chance your browser doesn't support HTML5 video).

You don't need a plug-in for Youtube, go here and click "Join the HTML5 Trial", they've had this for years.

From a developer standpoint HTML5 does not come close to the features of Flash. It is very hard or impossible in HTML5 to do things like DRM, subtitles, adaptive quality, annotations and currently there isn't one video format that's supported by all browsers so you have to do at least two encodes of every video.

 

[Michael Goff]

You don't need a plug-in for Youtube, go here and click "Join the HTML5 Trial", they've had this for years.

From a developer standpoint HTML5 does not come close to the features of Flash. It is very hard or impossible in HTML5 to do things like DRM, subtitles, adaptive quality, annotations and currently there isn't one video format that's supported by all browsers so you have to do at least two encodes of every video.

Yes, I know that.

I meant to force YouTube to USE HTML5 instead of Flash. It sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. It mostly doesn't. It mostly gives me an error message if I don't have Flash installed. Then I use the extension... and it works. Well, plug-in was a bad term. Extension was the right term.

Sorry about that.

Anyway, so because they haven't made HTML5 first-class citizen. And... when I use HTML5 it has subtitles, adaptive quality, dunno about annotations, and it's kind of their fault they're not just going with h.264 instead of their own WebM.

 

[simon48]

Yes, I know that.

I meant to force YouTube to USE HTML5 instead of Flash. It sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. It mostly doesn't. It mostly gives me an error message if I don't have Flash installed. Then I use the extension... and it works. Well, plug-in was a bad term. Extension was the right term.

Sorry about that.

Anyway, so because they haven't made HTML5 first-class citizen. And... when I use HTML5 it has subtitles, adaptive quality, dunno about annotations, and it's kind of their fault they're not just going with h.264 instead of their own WebM.

I said hard or impossible to do things and just because they have them showing up doesn't mean they're up to their standards. WebM is dead it was not a very good video format and no one really supported it. They do have H.264 support so I think they're going with it now. The only problem is Firefox does not have H.264 support and the way it's going it most likely never well.

 

[Michael Goff]

I said hard or impossible to do things and just because they have them showing up doesn't mean they're up to their standards. WebM is dead it was not a very good video format and no one really supported it. They do have H.264 support so I think they're going with it now. The only problem is Firefox does not have H.264 support and the way it's going it most likely never well.

I think Microsoft made an add-on for Firefox on Windows. I don't know about OS X or Linux, but at least they're trying.