Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tired of Flash? HTML5 Viewer For YouTube

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the that-taste-great-together dept.

Media 372

An anonymous reader writes "Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that doesn't drain CPU cycles like there's no tomorrow, NeoSmart Technologies has made an HTML5 viewer for YouTube videos. It loads YouTube videos in an HTML5 video container and streams (with skip/skim/pause/resume) against an MP4 resource, and an (optional) userscript file can update YouTube pages with the HTML5 viewer. The latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are supported. Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash."

cancel ×

372 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only video sites? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024282)

Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash

Re:Only video sites? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024312)

Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash

If Flash goes back to being a niche application for only certain specific types of content that actually require its programming language, such as online games, that would be a tremendous improvement. The issue being addressed here is that Flash is a full-featured system that's being used just to play videos, when there are other non-proprietary ways to deal with content that only needs to play a video. Using an open standard when one is available and could do the job is definitely a step in the right direction even if we know it's not a panacea that can totally replace Flash in every possible scenario. It could even lead to other open systems being designed and implemented that can replace Flash in areas where its featureset is actually needed.

Re:Only video sites? (-1)

Nadsat (652200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024712)

Can the poster of this article code? "Because nobody uses Flash for navigation"? What BS is that? Flash navigation no sweat. I can code great usable navigation that is SEO friendly using SWF Object. This also means providing ways for people with iPhones and what not. All completely user managed and dynamic and updatable through XML or a CMS. I can also deep link any site so that custom URLs all work within it it, and Google will wonderfully grab all of the content. I can make full screen Flash, hybrid Ajax/Flash, simple Flash components. I can make a Flash site that runs perfectly in all browser for all dimensions. Whatever you want in a comparable development time to PHP-DHTML-JS-MySQL development. You can't blame Flash as a whole or want it to "finally say goodbye" because some people don't know how to code. In the same way you can't blame Ajax or HTML as a whole because people don't know how to code. And in the same way you can't blame Slashdot as a whole because some people make broad generalizations on things they are not qualified to speak about. Get out of the 1990s. Get up to speed with current uses of new and existing technologies.

Re:Only video sites? (3, Informative)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024856)

He was being sarcastic

Re:Only video sites? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025008)

'Sperging pretty hard, huh.

It's ok, just relax.

Re:Only video sites? (5, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024820)

You mention that Flash should be replaced by open video standards for video applications. However, I frequently find video and even more so video live streams to be very fragile when the browser uses the systems video player. I then often just download the video and play it externally, because the internal video player doesn't respond and I don't know why.

Flash was introduced here because it just works.
Come up with something that works for everyone. If you make it better than Flash (how?) websites will switch. And Flashs security issues and crashes in Linux will not bother them.

Re:Only video sites? (2, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024854)

What the fuck kind of Flash are you using? I'll grant that it might be a little less flaky than integrated video plugins, but it's still a total crapfest next to a local copy.

The difference is that you can't download an flv when it starts skipping or outright freezing (Which happens every day.)

Re:Only video sites? (4, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024316)

because nobody uses Flash for navigation

Well, nobody with any sense, anyway.

nobody uses Flash for navigation (1)

japa (28571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024446)

http://astral.armadamusic.nl/ [armadamusic.nl]
(Terrible) example of full flash website...

Re:Only video sites? (4, Informative)

gravos (912628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024722)

Yep. Most of the advantages Flash previously had (animation, real client-side programming) for making rich navigation interfaces are now possible in a more open way with Javascript. The libraries are still a bit of a mess and browser support is always iffy, but dynamic, animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.

Re:Only video sites? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024858)

Modern flash is pretty much a rich graphics API wrapped around a cleaned up Javascript. It's a pretty nice language and environment, actually; but just inappropriately overused in many websites. I'm skeptical that html video extensions will replace it, because I don't think the html encoding will have nearly the versatility of a general purpose programming language. Will it be able to, for instance, stream recommended alternative videos or advertisements while the video is paused, for instance? It's not that I want that, but a lot of site owners do.

Posting anonymously because slashdot's javascript is tweaking out, and not letting me log on right now. I get on, but it immediately forgets me.

Re:Only video sites? (2, Informative)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024326)

If nothing else, corporations will always be using it for uselessly flashy websites. That alone ensures we'll be dealing with flash for a while to come.

Re:Only video sites? (2, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024512)

Just if you want to actually watch those shitty websites.

If say Blizzard would make a Starcraft 2 flash site then the videos on said site would most likely be viewable from other places to so ..

Re:Only video sites? (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024376)

Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash

Flash is a security nightmare and anything that reduces the amount of flash in the world can only be a good thing. Flash badly needs to be replaced with a good open standard and wiped out. But if that's not going to happen the next best thing is to reduce the amount of flash in the world.

Less of a bad thing is still an improvement.

Re:Only video sites? (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024438)

Precisely, but more than that, most of the time flash is being used where there's a better standard in place and in places where it shouldn't have been used originally. Flash sites aren't ADA compliant without an unreasonable amount of extra work. Mainly unreasonable because if it had been properly done in some other format it wouldn't take much effort at all.

Open is great, but really a secure, stable technology that's accessible to everybody is enough. Realistically that's probably open source.

Re:Only video sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024426)

Flash for video streaming could go away in the near future. But RIAs are so much better to develop and in flash then HTML/JS/AJAX. Real object oriented development and consistent presentation VS a hack of inconsistent browser dependent primitive technologies and software langues is what will keep flash like a 1 vitamin a day Flinstone's kid, strong and growing.

Re:Only video sites? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024478)

What we need is a tool to convert SWF into HTML. Now we have SVG and a much faster JavaScript in all the good browsers, I think HTML is now as fully capable as Flash. All we need is a tool to convert them.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024558)

Now we have SVG and a much faster JavaScript in all the good browsers

Good browsers isn't good enough for most sites though. While we can make a lot of "geek-centric" sites be viewable only in a certain handful of browsers, the stupid masses still use IE, from IE 6, 7 and 8. Until IE supports everything that Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, Konqueror, etc. support, expect those features to be under-used. Good luck convincing corporate overlords that you should lock out 65% of possible users by using standards that aren't implemented in IE compared to Flash which is viewable on pretty much everything save for the iPhone, BSD and a few other mobile browsers even though Flash is proprietary.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024616)

People already install the Flash plugin to get their IE working with YouTube. Why can't they install some HTML5 video support plugin?

Re:Only video sites? (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024660)

People already install the Flash plugin to get their IE working with YouTube. Why can't they install some HTML5 video support plugin?

Because that makes the whole idea useless. The purpose is to have browsers support this natively without using plugins. HTML5 is a good step in that direction I think, although we have to wait and see how MS implements that video tag.

Re:Only video sites? (2, Insightful)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024816)

Actually, it doesn't make the whole idea useless, because HTML5 is at least an open standard.

And isn't that what Chrome Frame is for?

Re:Only video sites? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024916)

The purpose is to have browsers support this natively without using plugins.

That's not the purpose. The purpose is to minimize proprietary plug-ins. Also, as it stands today HTML5 will need codecs for playing videos, and I consider codecs to be a kind of plug-in.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024980)

The purpose is to have browsers support this natively without using plugins.

No, the purpose is to let people who know what they're doing not use a plugin. The idiot masses are welcome to keep installing a plugin for everything because they're scared of Firefox.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024482)

With the exception of games, all of that can be handled by HTML5.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

JJJK (1029630) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024614)

And WebGL seems to be coming along nicely - what we need is a good authoring app that outputs js/webgl. As soon as that is available, I expect flash games to peak within 2-3 years. And then slowly die out.

Re:Only video sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024640)

Pretty much every Flash game i have ever played can be done in HTML5.
The only ones that i don't think will work are ones that do some fancy networking stuff that JavaScript can't use yet. (but it is in the pipeline)

Re:Only video sites? (0, Flamebait)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024498)

Well, nothing we care about atleast.

I want to be able to view the videos.

If someone is retarded enough to design a website in flash (hi westwood & co) then fuck them.

Flash for navigation is retarded, it's non-standard, has custom look and well, plain simply suck. Guess it's good for those designer retards which don't know nothing about actually creating valuable content. But fuck links to images or websites using javascripts to. I can decide on my own if I want to open, save, open in a new tab or a new window thank you ...

I don't give a shit about online games, and if I want loading flash just for them would be ok, but for all the ads and videos? And removing flash would remove all flash ads which would be a major benefit. (Sure there is flashblock for firefox and so on.)

I can say goodbye to flash at any time, sure it will break some sites, still possible, there is a life without those flash sites you know.

Another impediment in getting rid of flash (4, Interesting)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024522)

because nobody uses Flash for [list of uses of flash]

By way of anal extraction, I arrive at the conclusion that 90% of the eyeball wall time spent looking at flash is spent looking at videos.

(89% of those 90% being youtube + google video, another 0.5% being redtube).

Once we get to HTML5 video being popular, flash will become much more a niche thing. There's a long way between "niche" and "dead", but I don't know that we need to cross that gap. Heck, I still see Java applets around (for Rubik's Cube animations; I think that's one niche where they're used well).

On the other hand, if we RTFS:

The latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are supported

Note that IE is not on the list. Make an educated guess about the implications for the penetration of the video tag.

Re:Another impediment in getting rid of flash (4, Funny)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024832)

IE is supported by way of Chrome Frame...

Granted, that's like saying "Windows apps that are incompatible with WINE are supported on Linux by way of running Windows in a VM," but slightly more valid than that. ;)

Re:Only video sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024548)

It seems like it was only last week we said goodbye to Geocities, and this week Flash. Next week...Java?

Re:Only video sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024608)

Yay! Make way for Silverlight!

Re:Only video sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024738)

There's a metric crapton of music sites that use flash for playing audio, I find it odd that HTML5 would add video but not audio. I can see a million more people sharing music by making a 'video' of the album cover with the music, rather than say uploading it to a site like imeem that lets you upload music directly.

Re:Only video sites? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024898)

... uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash

Granted, Flash navigation isn't necessary. The effects can be provided by CSS, and search engines like text better.
Google maps street view uses Flash? Can't see it.
I don't mind a dedicated graphical programming environment being used for casual online games,
Now for interactive information displays, you have to realize that some content can not presented in a satisfying way with HTML/JS. You need flash for fancy animations, things flying around. Just look at some artists or movie website.
And the answer 'I don't want that fancy stuff anyway' is not enough. People want fancy.

So I think there will always be a need for a graphical programming environment that has the abilities of Flash (on the programmers side as well as on the users side). JS is not enough. Maybe someone will come up with something open that is equally easy (based on JS or Java(FX)?).
Until then, people will say "Just install Flash."

Re:Only video sites? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024932)

Google maps street view uses Flash? Can't see it.

Ooh just saw it. Well, if Google can't live without Flash, it is unlikely there is going to be a web without Flash.

ClickToFlash (5, Informative)

orta (786013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024284)

On OS X this has been available for ages, switchs all youtube videos to HTML5 and is extensible for other placse like Dailymotion. http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ [github.com]

Bump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024584)

Your comment on ClickToFlash (for Safari) should score a 5.

Re:Bump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024702)

totally agree. BETTER than sliced bread!

Re:ClickToFlash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024866)

On that website it says:

"Higher quality YouTube
Play videos in QuickTime, not Flash."

There is no word of HTML5 - it just replaces one plugin with another (but quicktime is of course still way better than flash).

Re:ClickToFlash (1)

orta (786013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024970)

That's because in Safari it uses quicktime to render the video element

down... (0)

Bluefirebird (649667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024286)

slashdotted already?

Any mirror or a proper link?

HTML5 video (5, Insightful)

KangKong (937247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024294)

The biggest problem isn't support for <video>, but common support for major video formats. Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.

Re:HTML5 video (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024414)

Thanks very much in whole to a political squabble about whose format would reign supreme.

I HATE it when politics get in the way of a standard.

Re:HTML5 video (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024488)

tbf do you want an inferior standard
or do you want an open standard that you need to pay royalties to implement?

It's not a simple problem (well IMO it is), but there is clearly a need for politics here, if you want to hate anything hate software patents.

Re:HTML5 video (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024778)

do you want an inferior standard
or do you want an open standard that you need to pay royalties to implement?

I would rather have a superior open standard because if there is a standard, that is a goal to work to. But without the standard, it is an excuse to avoid implementation. After all, software patents aren't enforceable in all countries - some browsers would be able to implement everything without paying royalties, might even draw attention to how software patents suck.

Meanwhile, we've gone years, probably decades now, with various flavors of the HTML and javascript standards that have almost never been 100% implemented in any one browser, much less all browsers. I don't see why the video tag should have to be any different.

False choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024784)

HTML5 *never* proposed a requirement for only a single format. Companies were free to include whatever new and superior formats they wanted.

What it did propose was recommending a baseline format that everyone should support (non-mandatory, but recommended). The standard includes the facilities for detecting which formats are supported and allowing the server and the client to work out the best which is mutually available.

Because of the enormous importance of free and open-source software on the internet the royalty encumbered formats were a total non-starter for baseline status.

Unfortunately the W3C allowed MPEG patent holders Apple, and Nokia to block the adoption of a royalty free baseline. Their argument was primarily that Theora was inferior to the best available, but that really doesn't make sense as an argument against a baseline. The same Nokia shill is now working in the IETF against the Xiph and Skype developers to block the IETF from working on a new royalty free audio codec for high quality VoIP (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg00269.html). Don't fall for the political games.

Re:False choice (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024884)

Problem is it's pretty much useless unless support is universal. No one wants to hold multiple formats for the same video, much less on-the-fly transcoding by sniffing browser agent strings or whatever.

Re:HTML5 video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024590)

Video compression evolves. The attempt to make any format a standard in an online scenario where content formats can be negotiated is the kind of political interference that you hate. (To put it another way: How would you have liked it if Microsoft had managed to make VC1 the standard for <video> and you had to use Microsoft software to create online video for the next decade?)

Re:HTML5 video (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024440)

The biggest problem isn't support for <video>, but common support for major video formats. Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.

That's not a huge problem -- the video element supports having multiple source elements, each can use different codecs.

For instance, I found this video [moblin.org] earlier. It's available as OGG or MP4, and the browser will choose automatically.

Re:HTML5 video (1)

KangKong (937247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024492)

Except with user uploaded material where the user either have no clue about multiple formats or is using tools that don't support the multiple browser friendly formats.
I foresee a future of IE only videos.

Re:HTML5 video (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024926)

There's no reason why the server side can't convert to the alternative formats.

Re:HTML5 video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024466)

Yes, but the way I understand, you can use content-negotiation to supply more than one format using the same video tag.

This would allow you to easily support multiple browsers by providing two or three different formats.

I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (4, Funny)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024306)

I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" to go along with FlashBlock, because it won't take long for irritating adverts to start using the option. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't started already...

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (1, Informative)

Miffe (592354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024396)

It allready exists, it's called Noscript...

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (2, Interesting)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024442)

No, one of the points of HTML5 is that it is controlled by the browser without plugins - the same way you've been able to choose to load images since almost forever...

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (2, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024782)

But Noscript can block video tags, so what's your point?

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024508)

I find that to be generally useful NoScript has to be used in its more paranoid settings, which makes it a bit too much of a blunt implement for my current needs.

Also, and I may be wrong here to please correct me if I am, I was under the impression that some video/audio content delivered via the new HTML5 facilities would be presented without the need for any scripting support?

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (2, Informative)

truedfx (802492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024676)

Also, and I may be wrong here to please correct me if I am, I was under the impression that some video/audio content delivered via the new HTML5 facilities would be presented without the need for any scripting support?

You're correct, but NoScript doesn't block only scripts. It includes the option to block <video> content, and some other non-scripted annoyances.

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (2, Informative)

Miffe (592354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024742)

For my gf i configured noscript to allow all script as default, but to forbid java/flash//, so it essentially acts as flashblock but for java and too. And Yes, html5 video doen't require scripting, but NoScript can block them anyway.

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (3, Insightful)

chonglibloodsport (1270740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024534)

Just use a style sheet. In HTML5 the video tag is no different from any other tag.

Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024924)

IE?

Window Mobile Please? (0, Offtopic)

Fizzol (598030) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024324)

I'd love to see this added to the Opera browser on my TP2. The included YouTube app works okay, but having support in the browser would be terrific.

So what about pr0n? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024386)

Does this mean easier, faster, higher quality pr0n?

That's what really drives innovation!

Re:So what about pr0n? (0, Offtopic)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024532)

Mail your suggestion to bdsmplaypen and redtube?

Here's a hint (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024406)

Anytime you submit a story and one of your sentences starts with "Personally,", leave it out. We don't care.

Re:Here's a hint (5, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024490)

We don't care.

I think you mean to say "Personally, I don't care."

And personally, I think you should definitely follow your own advice with that.

Re:Here's a hint (4, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024790)

Personally, I find comments like yours annoying.

Hardware acceleration (2, Interesting)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024424)

Now will we be able to get hardware video acceleration through VDPAU, etc so that I can play it on my Zotac ION media center or low power laptop?

Re:Hardware acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024864)

In-window browser based video will never be hardware accelerated on desktops.

Both flash and HTML5 need to convert the video to RGB in software so they can do pretty graphical overlays on top of it. You could potentially use hardware acceleration to render off-screen then copy it back, but in practice the extra memory copies make that slower than just using an unaccelerated decode.

Say goodbye to Flash? (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024444)

As some of the above posters mentioned: There is still a lot of Flash use on stuff besides videos on the Net.

Also, I think that Adobe is definitely going to give Google a call one of these days (if they haven't already), and offer something to keep the default to Flash for some time being: I would not believe that they will let this one slide so easily.

Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.
I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about that, but for me Flashplayers are one of the better alternatives around for playing video content on the web: Quicktime, Realplayer and Windows Media plugins all suck monkeyballs.

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (1)

younata (1555631) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024524)

You've never used a unix(-based) os.

It's annoying as hell when you're watching a youtube video, and trying to do something else at the same time (why else have so much screen space, right?) and it eats up your cpu cycles.

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (2, Informative)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024896)

You could try minitube [tordini.org] , a native Youtube client. You don't even need to have the stupid Flash Player installed to use it, so it doesn't eat more CPU than any other video player.

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (5, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024610)

It's not so much the incompatibilities (although support for non x86-32 platforms has always been very poor on Linux), but the inefficiencies. There's *no* reason for a 320x240 web video to bring a modern system to its knees (GPU acceleration or not).

Even VLC's somewhat buggy FLV implementation plays flash videos with 1/10 the CPU cycles that the flash player does.

Flash's performance is borderline acceptable on Windows, although the mac version (PPC especially!) is appallingly bad.

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024936)

HD flash videos use about 3-4% of my CPU. corei7 920. Talking about full screen video streams that eat up 700KB(bytes)/sec and look pixel perfect on my 1920x1080 screen. The biggest issues I have with flash are crappy adds that peg one of my logical CPUs.

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024634)

Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.

I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about that

eheh. were you aiming for the funny mod ? :)
of course, if you are not affected by the problems, you would not understand them.

i could come up with many analogies, referencing historical atrocities, but i'll leave that to badanalogyguy.
no, wait, i'll try one, and it's even car related !

"i don't understand why all the hype about toyotas accelerating on their own, well, maybe for some increase in crash possibility.

not that i own or have owned a toyota ever. i haven't even ever been near public roads they drive on !"

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024686)

of course, if you are not affected by the problems, you would not understand them.

Hence why I said I don't understand it, besides the OS incompatibilities.

"i don't understand why all the hype about toyotas accelerating on their own, well, maybe for some increase in crash possibility.
not that i own or have owned a toyota ever. i haven't even ever been near public roads they drive on !"


I've played around with various Linux distros, but found it unsuitable for most tasks (read: compatibility with my software). So yes, I -have- been near the roads, and even driven various Toyotas, but they just seem to fulfill my needs.

Happy now?

Re:Say goodbye to Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024942)

So yes, I -have- been near the roads, and even driven various Toyotas, but they just seem to fulfill my needs.

Then go buy a Toyota.

ClickToFlash for Safari/Mac already does this (1)

s.o.terica (155591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024504)

ClickToFlash for Safari (similar to the FlashBlock plugin for Firefox) already does this, letting you load the H.264 video with QuickTime inline where the Flash video would normally go

Re:ClickToFlash for Safari/Mac already does this (2, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024554)

Yep, I recently discovered this myself. Unfortunately (as with this clever HTML5 hack), it only supports YouTube, so videos on other sites still require Flash.

flashdotted (1)

Froze (398171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024526)

Cool, all of the youtube videos have been replaced with

"Connection Interrupted
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again."

What an improvement in load time too!

Silverlight (1, Insightful)

wile_e8 (958263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024580)

Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.

Yeah, except for all the major sites that will continue to use Silverlight since Microsoft is paying them to annoy OS X and Linux users even more than using Flash.

Re:Silverlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024636)

I have no issues playing silverlight video on my mac.

Webconverger 5.7 features HTML5 video support (2, Informative)

DraQ (161513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024588)

Today Webconverger released with an HTML5 video enabled build today: http://webconverger.org/blog/entry/5.7_with_Firefox_3.5/ [webconverger.org]

The plan is once HTML5 video becomes prevalent, the integrated proprietary flash player will be dropped. http://webconverger.org/adobe/ [webconverger.org]

Link doesn't work for me (1)

blakedev (1397081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024602)

Also, does anyone know how well this works for FreeBSD?

Does this actually work? (2, Informative)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024604)

I just tried it with FF 3.5.5 (on Linux), and got nothing but a non-working clone of the YouTube player. It's been the same story with YouTube's HTML5 demo [youtube.com] for some time as well.

If it's a windows-only thing, or Chrome-only, then it's not good enough to replace Flash yet.

Re:Does this actually work? (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024680)

I get this result on MacOS also. By the looks of it they're trying to play the MP4 files directly, which will not work because AFAIK Firefox only plays OGV format. They claim it works on the latest firefox - I don't know if they're thinking of the 3.6 series or something...

Re:Does this actually work? (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024730)

Same here, it didn't work. HTML5 videos work fine on other sites though.

Re:Does this actually work? (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024800)

Doesn't work in FF 3.5.5 (WinXP) either. I think it just doesn't work in Firefox.

Re:Does this actually work? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024930)

That page is a bit of an epic fail really. Flash has nothing to worry about if you have to download Chrome to view the page.

Re:Does this actually work? (4, Informative)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025024)

No, it doesn't work on Firefox, as an update to the blog post points out. Youtube won't supply video in a format Firefox supports (and it only supports one - Theora). I believe there is work being done to allow Firefox to use other codecs if you have them installed (as Webkit does - it works for me using Epiphany), at which point this could potentially work on Firefox.

Flash is Pseudo-DRM (2, Insightful)

rayharris (1571543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024630)

If video content is served directly in a video tag, it will be just as easy to download as images on a web page. Content providers know this and won't use the video tag.

One reason content providers use Flash instead of just letting you download the video file is that Flash (ostensibly) prevents you from downloading the video. While it's true that there are plug-ins for Firefox to let you download Flash videos, the people who use them are a small minority. Even with the video tag, Flash will still be widely used to "protect" the content.

Impressive (4, Informative)

skirmish666 (1287122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024648)

Only uses ~8% CPU on safari vs ~30% for the same video through the safari flash plugin.

Tired of Flash? HTML5 Viewer For YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024732)

Tired of Flash? HTML5 Viewer For YouTube

Sweet! HTML5 Viewer for YouTube, that's slightly entertaining. Oops, now I'm tired of HTML5. How about a Java player? When I get tired of that, we can try Silverlight.

Integrated Files. (portability) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024766)

I think the only real complaint i have heard from people about Flash "going away" is the fact that it makes things less portable.

But really, it doesn't make things less portable if you are smart about it.
Currently you can already embed binary information in JavaScript, convert it to Base64 and set it as a source.
There are already several pretty decent templating libraries out there as well.
Essentially, we have replaced SWF with JS, which is a good thing since with JS you will have a lot more freedoms in how you code things.

cpu usage. (1)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024796)

On Chrome, works fine but no visible CPU usage improvement.

worse: YouTube flash disables autosleep on Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024940)

I noticed something wierd on the family Vista boxes that I take care of. They are all set to save power by sleeping after 30minutes of idleness, and that used to work fine, but most of them now never sleep.

It turns out that if a user watches a YouTube video in a browser and leaves that tab open to YouTube, it prevents Vista from auto-sleeping. Even if the video finished loading and playing days ago.

Manually invoking sleep still works, and closing all the browser tabs with YouTube brings auto sleep back. [Usually -- a few other flash sites cause the same problem, but it's 99.9% YouTube in real life.]

Firefox 3.5 proprietary video format patch? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024828)

Has anyone got a patch to make (Linux) Firefox play all formats natively, that e.g. ffmpeg plays? (It could use that exact library.) I don't care for any stupid imaginary "IP" laws and shit like that. I want all formats to work. No matter if the FF team lives in the real world or not. ^^

Anyone?

Why is Flash so bad? (1)

nashv (1479253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024876)

Is it just me or does the Neosmart website have a terrible time pulling the videos from YouTube. The player interface seems to load but no video. A lot of people seem to have problems with Flash. I really don't understand what the issues are, and would like to know. I've been using Flash on Firefox/Windows for years and it has done its job so well that I've forgotten its there - which is exactly what I expect from something like Flash.

A clever solution to a stupid problem (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30024910)

Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page? This is something I've never understood, and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea. There must be better ways of distributing video on the Internet. I always use clive when somebody sends me a youtube/vimeo link, but I'd much rather get a link to the actual file.

I'm probably just an old-fashioned geek, but I like to focus on whatever I'm doing. When I'm watching a video, I'd rather not watch any extraneous crap around it. It's an issue of both screen real estate and attention [www.hs.fi] . Now get off my lawn!

alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30024944)

or use any of the many apps that can search and play youtube videos, totem, moovida, miro, maemo youtube, canola ...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?