YouTube Transitioning To HTML5, Flash In Jeopardy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


I noticed that also, HTML5 has been pretty much finalized and used in all browsers today.
 
This is a great transition, HTML5 is definitely more secure & has better performance. I'd like to see sometime in the future that HTML5 on youtube can play 1080P or higher. 😀
 
I have not used flash I awile I uninstall it and just go with that and best part I don't miss it at all if sites use it and most time for ad's is why I removed it I got the pop up for this site want you to install flash but for what I see all I need to with out it , too bad. the html is doing a fine job for what I see from it for my needs [opinion]
 


why would they need to do anything, almost every video on youtube already works with html5 without any issues, some very old ones don't but they are less than 1%
 
About time they start to kill Flash. The software has been around well past it's prime and needs to be put out to pasture.

Dual core + to play flash games and no Android/iOS support due to security holes that cannot be fixed; they've grown it to much larger than its original intention, and the end result problems show that.
 
Flash is dead, long live Flash! I'm not happy with HTML5 having DRM features, but come on, it's better than the alternatives (flash, silverlight). I stopped using Netflix because of silverlight.
 
Somebody needs to que up a Stewie Griffin "Victory Is Mine"
To the death of Flash, I'll drink to that

Next on this list needs to be Citrix. With all its JAVA VM bugs and garbage scripts. I can't get over the large number of system admins who use this garbage.
 


Add anything Novell and Adobe Coldfusion to the list as well. :)
 


You are not wrong, but are just a little off on this. WebRTC can be used and implemented through plugins on systems that don't have HTML5, but can be used without plugins on HTML5. The better API support that Flash doesn't haven't allows for better use and support of programs like WebRTC is a positive feature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC

For the video codec, yes it does allow for basically all codecs to be used, but you wouldn't view HTML5 playing a video in H.264 as being an advantaged over Adobe Flash, because Adobe Flash can do the same thing and it really isn't all that different. The advantages and features are things the HTML5 can do that Adobe Flash can't such use making use of the VP9 codec.


For Firefox's HTML5 support, that is what YouTube had to say about the matter. Check the source:
http://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2015/01/youtube-now-defaults-to-html5_27.html

Likely the issue with Firefox isn't that it doesn't have HTML5, but that it requires additional plugins or use of the beta version for watching some youtube content.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/viewing-html5-audio-and-video

According to Firefox's website it lacks support for VP9 and H.265 which are really the codecs YouTube is going to want to push towards using since they have lower demands on bandwidth.
 
As I recall, html5 is vastly superior to flash. Much less bloated, smoother performance etc. I'm surprised proprietary bloatware like flash managed to hang around as long as it has. I've been waiting for html5 to be fully transitioned since they introduced it years ago. Goodbye and good riddance, flash is just an inferior platform much like java based programs.
 
It is not true that VP9 only supports 8-bit color. VP9 supports 12-bit color
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9.
Click to expand...
According to your own link, looks like currently only Profile 0 is mandatory for hardware support. Not that most users would even know, only advanced users would even run into many scenarios where they miss having P1+ in hardware, and very few would care as that's mainly a mobile limitation, x86 devices will have stronger support and/or decode with shaders.

Also they say "Google has announced that it is developing two high bit depth profiles". As in, they decided to add profiles 2 and 3 with high depth capabilities. H.264 has had it for ages, H.265 has had it baked in from the start. Sorry for not keeping up with Google's ever-moving standards... they say they're aiming for some ridiculous 18-month release cadence starting after VP10. Yikes.

Anyway I've read a lot of comparisons and generally HEVC beats the stuffing out of VP9. Though only if you use a good encoder and know what you're doing. HEVC is definitely not for beginners. The only biggest disadvantage to HEVC (outside of licensing which I don't really give a crap about, they cried about that with H.264 too) is decoding resources. But since it's already getting baked into new SoCs I'm not terribly concerned about it.
 
VP9 IS NOT More efficient than x264 neither faster, what a shill!
Also DRM?! That would be awful. Maybe we'll see youtube losing ground to some competitors thanks to that! Just Wait and see!
 
I'm not against HTML5 but the performance of the Chrome is not nearly what it should be - it shutters when firefox and IE brings smooth playback. This really bugs me. Also the html 5 player is really buggy - it can crash when changing quality , or want to skip some part, or return video.
 

Youtube is already using DRM with flash and have been for a while. One of the conditions set by youtube for them to switch over to HTML5 was that HTML5 support DRM so that youtube could continue to have it.

 
"Among the many changes to HTML5 brought in the release includes DRM technologies. This is the final bit of software YouTube required in order to completely transition over to HTML5, as many users of the popular video watching site want the ability to control their content. "

I bet 'allmytube' and other software and web sites that can download a Youtube video for you will figure out the algorithm so it'll still be seamless for the user to copy off videos that are clean of DRM
 
Your HTML5.1 addon will be hard to find. You might notice that the author said it was "in development". That generally means ideas for it are still being bounced off of the walls to see what sticks, and programmers are attempting to take what did stick and turn it into functioning code. My guess? It should be ready for "we the people" sometime next year, and I would doubt that it would be out in the first half of next year.
 
IMO, this is a good thing. I don't hate Flash and I wont sing praises to HTML5 until I dig into it more but it's no secret that Flash has it's problems and since it's been sitting pretty for so long, Adobe has been slow to correct many of the problems. Whether this pushes Flash out the door or encourages Adobe to improve the old tech, this is good for the end-users.
 
The HTML 4k performance has been terrible for me, high cpu usage even with a modern i5, they need to sort that out,, right it's imposible for me to play a 4k video smoothly, better implement gpu acceleration and polish the player who crash frequently.
 
About damn time, I hate having to update a flash player constantly. I just hope these silly adds on the sides of certain websites stay flash because atm I set my browser to not play all flash content unless it prompts me on new websites and only always allow on very few select websites. Thus if the website is mostly articles but has these annoying add videos which are very distracting you don't even watch them. The adds I am talking about don't use add block.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom