Chrome 20 Takes Over Adobe Flash On Linux

[Daveoc64]

The reason that plugins like Flash and Silverlight are still being used is that the content producers don't want their content in the totally unprotected forms that HTML5 video offers.

Until you can find a way to solve that (and such a feat is inherently impossible), you won't see major content moving away from Flash/Silverlight.

All of the stuff on YouTube that is Flash-only either has ads or is "protected" content.

Other types of content like games pick Flash because it's very mature. The APIs that Flash supports in every browser from IE8 on Windows XP to Firefox on Mac OS X are (currently) more capable and stable than anything that the "HTML5 umbrella" (HTML5, CSS3, Canvas, SVG) can offer.

Given:

-The explosion in how much video people watch online
-The rise of casual web games (particularly on Facebook)

The demise of plugins like Flash is greatly exaggerated.

[TobiSGD]

How about we don't Implement PPAPI and instead put a bullet in Flash's head?

That would mean we block out basically 50% (estimated, I think no one knows concrete numbers) of the web content, Flash is not only for videos, but also for applications and games. And it should be not that hard, i would think (I don't really know, I am not a programmer), to implement Pepper in Mozilla browsers, it is just that they don't want to:

Mozilla is not interested in or working on Pepper at this time.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/NPAPI:Pepper

[uid313]

How about we don't Implement PPAPI and instead put a bullet in Flash's head?

Sure, put a bullet in Flash's head! I am all for that!

Note that PPAPI isn't just about Flash. It's about all browser plugins.
Java, Silverlight, Facebook Video Chat, etc.

I've been running 13.0.1 for 11 days now with 327 tabs across 4 windows.

You have a tab counter?

Google can do HTML5 with youtube, but even that they do bad. Just try to watch a movie in 1080p with Flash on Youtube (if your hardware support it), then try the same thing with the same video on HTML5 mode (if you subscribed on it)... And see the difference, HTML5 will be much but much slower than flash (even without the Hardware Acceleration from flash), and then you can test Daylimotion with the same video in 1080p with flash (since they don't propose HTML5 yet) and you will see diference.. Even my netbook can see the 1080p video on daylimotion, when with Youtube, a simple video in fullscreen (even in 360p) makes the whole video lag.

It is the developpers job to start make more and more HTML5 content, most of the users will not see the diference, but if they like they will support, just like flash at his time.

HTML5 video is a new technology.
I expect HTML5 video performance to improve over time.

A big part of the web still (sadly) relies on flash. Be it content delivery (vimeo, youtube) or webpages. And even sadder than this its the fact that many that support html5 dont support open codecs (ie .webm, .ogg) or block content for other reasons (ie youtube).

And google doesn't push to the right direction too much.

Yes, this is really sad!
Google should have never adopted H264. Now Mozilla is forced to adopt it too when everyone else is.
Google and Mozilla should have made a pact not to adopt it.
Should have pushed VP8 / WebM harder.

[89c51]

Google can do HTML5 with youtube, but even that they do bad. Just try to watch a movie in 1080p with Flash on Youtube (if your hardware support it), then try the same thing with the same video on HTML5 mode (if you subscribed on it)... And see the difference, HTML5 will be much but much slower than flash (even without the Hardware Acceleration from flash), and then you can test Daylimotion with the same video in 1080p with flash (since they don't propose HTML5 yet) and you will see diference.. Even my netbook can see the 1080p video on daylimotion, when with Youtube, a simple video in fullscreen (even in 360p) makes the whole video lag.

It is the developpers job to start make more and more HTML5 content, most of the users will not see the diference, but if they like they will support, just like flash at his time.

My problem is that even if the video i am trying to watch is encoded in .webm i get the dreaded "This video is currently unavailable" message . I read that it has to do with advertising or something.

Vimeo on the other hand even if it supports html5 they gone the apple way and everything is encoded in h264.

Fucking idiots.

[Kivada]

Yes, this is really sad!
Google should have never adopted H264. Now Mozilla is forced to adopt it too when everyone else is.
Google and Mozilla should have made a pact not to adopt it.
Should have pushed VP8 / WebM harder.

As I said, we've got to get on Google, the next version of android should REQUIRE WebM support on the DSP, Youtube needs to reverse their transcode priorities, all that can legally be transcoded to WebM should first, then get a Flash and lastly an H.264 version only when it is either very popular or when the transcode servers don't have a backlog.

Google also needs to include a WebM browser plugin for IE and Safari with ALL of their MAc and Windows software installers, Chrome, Picasa, Google Earth, Google Desktop, Google Toolbar, and everything else http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...p_applications

It's how Apple forces Quicktime and Safari on people, hell plugging in an Android phone should prompt to install a WebM plugin if it's not found.

On top of that Firefox/Iceweasel on Linux should by default should come with the Youtube HTML5 plugin and the Youtube WebM search plugin.

You have a tab counter?

Session Manager https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ssion-manager/
I backed up the session and it told me what I currently have open.

[d2kx]

Google I/O 2012 starts in an hour. One of the talks there is about YouTube going HTML5.

[aliasbody]

My problem is that even if the video i am trying to watch is encoded in .webm i get the dreaded "This video is currently unavailable" message . I read that it has to do with advertising or something.

Vimeo on the other hand even if it supports html5 they gone the apple way and everything is encoded in h264.

Fucking idiots.

This is why I said that it is the job of the developpers. In this case, it is a job for Google, to stop supporting h.264 and start support webm and ogg.

I mean, if they don't support ogg... it is a choice, but I just want to remember that webm is sponsored by Mozilla, Google and even Adobe. If they want to support h.264 on their browser, why not since a lot of website use it (Vimeo for example as you remembered right), but it is an Insane idea to support it on Youtube.... but if they payd it once they use it whenever they can... and that is the problem... Now because of that it is very probable that Firefox has to support it as well, and maybe has to pay for the support since it isn't an open format...

I can be wrong on that one, but I've noticed that, all the videos on youtube are diferent, and depend on the server. Some use flash, others use HTML5, some uses webm, others uses h.264, and even with the flash versions, some have some options (like the miniature on top of the time when we navigate the play bar, that other videos don't have), and I am just talking about the users videos.

So I think that this can depend on a lot of factores, like for example, the server, the company publishing the video, ads or not ads etc... But I can be wrong..

[aliasbody]

Google I/O 2012 starts in an hour. One of the talks there is about YouTube going HTML5.

Is there anyplace we can see it ?

[aliasbody]

Is there anyplace we can see it ?

I've found it --> https://developers.google.com/events/io/

[drag]

Bad bad bad , corruption image , problems with alsa , lost frames...:/, horrible ( ATI HD 4650, catalyst 12.4)

Works perfectly well and is much better then old Flash.

Gallium drivers ATI HD 5750 and HD 6310