
Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5 - slederer
https://bitmovin.com/google-replace-flash-with-html5/
======
franciscop
> _DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5
> offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions._

DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in
the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of
browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it
impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

~~~
macspoofing
>DRM has never been important for online video workflow

Yes it has. Always.

~~~
Spivak
No it hasn't. It's just been a demand from media execs that distribution
networks are forced to implement.

Netflix is competing with free and winning -- they've created something that's
actually more convenient than piracy. I can already download everything on
Netflix from my friendly local piracy site, but I don't because the eight
bucks a month is worth less than the time I would waste pirating it.

Hell, Netflix could put a download button next to all their content and I bet
it wouldn't affect piracy. The value isn't in the content but the distribution
network that's so good even pirates can't compete with it.

~~~
mikk14
Meh. Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small.
Netflix is good if you're an American and not very into movies. As soon as you
are looking for something outside the "very mainstream" you're out of luck.

Your "I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local
piracy site" works, but the other way around doesn't. I've been a Netflix user
for years, but I'm on the verge of unsubscribing, because I realized that
since January I've only watched House of Cards.

~~~
gshulegaard
> Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small.

I question this assertion as Netflix used to use torrent trends as a decision
input for deciding what content to purchase:
[https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-uses-pirate-sites-to-
determ...](https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-uses-pirate-sites-to-determine-
what-shows-to-buy-130914/)

I can also offer anecdotal evidence that the piracy rates of my college social
network dramatically decreased as the affordability and content quality of
Netflix increased.

Netflix is being squeezed by media publishers which is why they started
publishing their own content. I still hope that streaming services like
Netflix will win and reshape the market...but it is a difficult fight.

On the note of you only having watched "House of Cards", there are a bunch of
Netflix shows I could recommend for you if you're interested. "Peaky Blinders"
comes to mind immediately since we are due for another season at the end of
this month.

------
macspoofing
What bugs me is that Google gave itself a pass by white-listing YouTube -
because it turns out some people still need Flash on YouTube. Google should
dog-food their own policies.

~~~
hsivonen
Are there parts of YouTube that require Flash in Chrome other than legacy
embeds on non-YouTube sites that enable the embedding page to script the Flash
embed via a JS API?

~~~
macspoofing
>other than legacy embeds on non-YouTube sites that enable the embedding page
to script the Flash embed via a JS API

That's probably it. Then again, it's not just Google that has to deal with
legacy applications. So yeah, if you're going to shove this policy in the name
of open standards, dog-food it and deal with the same pain countless of
companies will have to.

------
simonsarris
Google Finance still uses Flash:

[https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG](https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG)

I really wish they didn't leave it to rot.

~~~
clydethefrog
So does Google Music, you need Chrome if you want to use it without Flash and
even then it doesn't work immediately.

[http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music-
st...](http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music-still-
requires-flash.html?m=1)

~~~
lloeki
Flash is only required when subscribed to Google Play Music All Access /
Youtube Red, otherwise a free account can readily enable HTML5 audio in the
options, which works in Chrome/Safari/Firefox (just tested again to be sure)
and probably Edge also.

------
BugsBunnySan
well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not
an advantage, see for example [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-
firefox](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox)

~~~
acdha
EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids pulling
in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video. We can debate
other aspects but from a security perspective moving to a small, tightly-
scoped module is a big win and that's important when the cost of
vulnerabilities is in the billions per year.

It's also somewhat good for the web since both of those platforms are
competitors and companies often reuse things they've already invested in.

It is unequivocally bad that it poses a risk to Mozilla but the real problem
isn't EME but rather the fact that all of the DRM opposition since the 90s has
failed to move public opinion much. As long as customers happily pay for DRMed
content and three of the major browsers are made by DRM vendors, the most
likely alternative to Flash is a proprietary interface. The fact that EME is
standardized at least gives the EFF better grounds for demanding consistent
treatment.

~~~
the8472
> EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids
> pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video.

You don't need EME "just to play video". HTML5-video without EME can do that
just fine.

It is only when you conflate video playback with DRM then that argument
somewhat works.

~~~
untog
But the vast majority of video watched today (think Netflix) would not be on
the web if it were not DRMed.

Philosophical arguments about what "video" "needs" are all very well, but the
side that actually provides users with the content they want where they want
it will be the side that wins, and very quickly.

------
innix
This is a real blow to sites that rely on Flash's RTMP for low-latency live
streaming. There's no real HTML5 equivalent right now. HLS and MPEG-DASH have
a delay of around 30 seconds, often more.

~~~
slederer
We did tests here and got down to 8 seconds end to end delay, including
transcoding. but also HTTP2.0 push will be super interesting here.

~~~
ericzawo
Wow, impressive! I'm waiting for the day where my internet stream is 'Live'
like my television is 'live.'

~~~
ramy_d
I did a cursory search out of curiosity: TV has a 7 second delay they add
themselves to filter content. The broadcast itself is pretty much instant.
It's impressive.

~~~
birdman3131
I work for a church that does live broadcasts. We see about a 3-5 second delay
on OTA and about a 4-6 second delay on cable. We are tied to the tv station by
a fiber line and they are only a block or so away.

~~~
ramy_d
interesting!

------
PretzelFisch
I don't care so much about video, but audio. I can't find a site that streams
audio with out flash. This is how this change will affect me.

~~~
cornedor
Including Google's own Google Music, I use Firefox in my daily browsing
without Flash installed, when I want to listen to my music i've to start
Google Chrome which has Flash by default. The experimental HTML5-audio toggle
is always disabled for me.

~~~
Ambroos
Play Music always uses HTML5 now, which is why the toggle is not available
(but it's indicated badly). You can disable the built-in Flash on
chrome://plugins and everything will still work.

~~~
wjoe
Only in Chrome, it still requires Flash in Firefox for some reason. They're
using some non-standard way of doing HTML5 Audio as far as I remember, which
only works in Chrome.

Bug report is here -
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911837](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911837)
\- It's been a while since I looked into it and looks like the details have
changed recently. At least a quick attempt now tells me "Please refresh this
page in your browser to get back to listening to your music. If issues
persist, make sure you have Flash enabled and working."

~~~
fixermark
Is there a standard way of doing HTML5 audio?

By which I mean, a standard that works cross-browser? ;)

~~~
cpeterso
Google Play Music uses MSE (Media Source Extensions) to stream MP3. Firefox
doesn't support MP3 in MSE streams. Google Play Music could use AAC or Opus in
MSE, like YouTube does, but they prefer MP3 because some Android devices have
MP3 hardware decoders that (may!) use less battery power than software
decoders.

YouTube encodes all their content with in multiple formats: AAC and Opus,
H.264 and VP9. I don't know why Google Play Music can't encode their music
streams in both MP3 and Opus. They would save on bandwidth by using Opus.

Here is the Firefox bug to add support for MP3 in MSE:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485)

------
exodust
This article has the vibe of drawing attention to something else other than
the subject of the piece. Is that unfair to say? Not for me to judge I
suppose, but the final paragraph says it all.

Anyway, a couple of things from the article...

> _" Netflix have already switched to HTML5...due to the benefits of HTML5
> based streaming"_

> _"...HTML5 outperforms plugin based playback in almost every department"_

> " _...delivering high bandwidth products such as 360° video and Virtual
> Reality in a more efficient manor._ "

Such generic statements! Netflix HTML5 playback in both Chrome and Firefox is
limited to 720p. That's not a benefit and is why I must use silverlight in IE
on Windows 7 to watch 1080p Netflix. They really should cover things like this
to better reflect how things actually are.

The claims about HTML5 performance over plugins should only come from people
who have done side by side comparisons. So many bloggers telling it according
to something they read somewhere.

Finally, " _360° video in a more efficient manor_ ". I like efficient manors,
even bad manors, but again this claim should be backed up with evidence. If
you look at VR, if you look at 360 video, the evidence for better performance
in HTML5 for these technologies is simply not there. Even with still image
panoramas, anyone who has made these in something like KrPano will know that
Flash panoramas generally outperform HTML5 panoramas. Smoother motion, better
memory management, better cross-browser performance. We may wish it weren't
so, but we should get facts straight regardless of whether it leaves HTML
(which we love) a little bruised in the comparison.

------
rektide
Among other things, it means the final nail in the coffin of hardware
accelerated web video on Linux, after Chrome disabled then removed it's
working browser implementation.
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247)

------
yaur
While the focus is rightly on video, there are a huge number of games written
in flash. In the short term this s probably a hug boost for unity... But as
flash dies there will be a lot of games that die with it.

~~~
fixermark
Unity is itself a proprietary, single-vendor, closed-source plugin.

Though I don't disagree at all, transitioning from one proprietary, single-
vendor, closed-source plugin to another isn't actually going to solve the
problems that killing Flash is supposed to solve (apart from the one where
Flash is also a gigantic legacy-code monument to all our sins, of course ;) ).

~~~
mastax
Unity you output WebGl-based games, see [http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl-
building.html](http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl-building.html)

From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin, so
there's some work to be done on unity's end. Beyond that, if browser makers
want to replace native code plugins they have to give a better alternative.
WebAssembly might help, but since it's essentially running in the same vm as
JS I'm not sure it'll be faster other than the parsing overhead.

~~~
fixermark
> From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin...

... two things that absolutely kill videogames, so it's more accurate to say
"Unity you _will_ output WebGl-based games" (at some indeterminate point in
the future).

Agreed that it's a step in the right direction over alternatives though.

------
oolongCat
<rant>

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change.

We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they
announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and
start doing everything they want.

What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate
Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a
company doesn't like it. How long before we see adblockers, anti piracy
trackers and basically anything that a company like google will see as a
threat get blocked.

Don't give me that "Oh flash has security holes so we are blocking it." Yeh
when our governments use this same excuse we are all up in arms, but when a
company does this many are okay with it.

The sad sad truth is majority of users are going to fall in line whenever a
company decides what's best for them.

</rant>

And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a
comment as to why you are downvoting.

~~~
stephenr
I'll see your rant and raise you an exasperated sigh.

> We are starting to become a bunch of sheep

You might be, but not all of us are.

> why are we not pissed off about this

About them blocking (but still bundling) flash in 2016? I'd honestly be more
questioning why they ever bundled it in the first place. I use Safari and have
not installed Flash in.. years.

But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to
arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" \- people _are_ pissed
off. Unfortunately, there is seemingly an entire _generation_ of developers
who are somehow perpetually convinced Google is the second coming of jesus,
and that anything they do must be a good thing.

I've seen developers who will argue that they use emacs/vim over a full IDE
"because now I'm not reliant, I can work on a server if i need to" and then
use Google for fucking everything. So the lesson is, you can't become
dependent on something you actually have control over, like a laptop, but it's
fine to become dependent on a mega-corporation that has a history of just
abandoning shit because nothing ever lives up to the ridiculous amounts of
profits made by being a creepy personal data collecting tracker of fucking
everything.

Regardless of your thoughts about flash, this is the perfect opportunity to
explore the world outside google. Other browsers exist. Other search engines
exist. Other ad networks (and less fucking creepy ones) exist. Go forth. Be
adventurous. Be free. Seriously.

Anyone who thinks Google's level of control on the web (search engine,
browser, data centres, home internet connections, mobile phones) isn't a
massive risk is kidding themselves.

Edit: for clarity, I'm not arguing that the situation isn't fucked, just
saying, don't lie down and accept it. Also, have an up vote, because, you
know, the voting system here is fucked.

~~~
spydum
> But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to
> arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" \- people are pissed
> off.

I think categorizing it as winners and losers is wrong. As much ribbing as
google gets, I think very often, they are using their position of power to
make the internet more secure and functional. They won't get it right every
time, but I'm happy to see them try.

~~~
stephenr
Every tyrant claims to be doing things "for the greater good".

------
zxcvcxz
But I recently realized flash is now required for google music?

[http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png](http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png)

It worked fine before they re-wrote it. Now I have to turn on the flash plugin
and the whole thing runs slow and feels clunky. Why google?

------
aardshark
Funny, HTML5 streaming in Chrome often breaks for me and I have to restart to
fix this.

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this reliably, otherwise I'd file a bug.

------
shmerl
I've heard that many CDNs are still lagging to adopt DASH, and it causes a
major problem for any service which wants to implement HTML5 video (DASH +
Media Source Extensions). How does it work for Youtube, do they simply run
their own CDN?

 _> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow_

I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not
an important part of the workflow. It's a tool of corrupted groups for
standards poisoning, market control and "creative" undemocratic lawmaking.

~~~
Veratyr
Maybe I'm naïve or not seeing something here but DASH looks like something you
can do by storing a couple of files somewhere and setting a MIME type [0]?

What's special about DASH that CDNs need to specially support it? Or are you
talking about services that handle transcoding video and such as well?

[0]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/DASH_Adapt...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/DASH_Adaptive_Streaming_for_HTML_5_Video)

~~~
shmerl
From what I understood, CDN is needed to lift the heavy load from the source
servers. Without them you'd be hammered by heavy traffic, and not only that,
the route to the end user will be most likely longer.

DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from the
client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure (including codecs and
etc.). I don't know the details exactly, but it's far from trivial. May be
someone can explain what the difficulty is in detail.

Currently CDNs support HLS and Adobe's adaptive streaming, both of which
aren't open standards and aren't part of HTML5 video.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Ado...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Adobe_HTTP_Dynamic_Streaming)

Without DASH support in CDN, you can't scale your service, and to get rid of
Flash and Adobe's adaptive streaming you need DASH + MSE. That's how I
understood it at least.

~~~
_puk
> DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from
> the client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure

Adaptive streaming is essentially a client side technology, all the CDN needs
to do is ensure that it serves up files with the right mime type (not actually
a hard requirement, but many players choke if you don't).

Which segment to play next is decided by the player based on current playback
conditions and a manifest of available segments and bitrates; it then requests
the relevant segment from the CDN, which delivers it as it would a normal
file. (A segment is just a very short video file).

The CDN is not expected to keep state for each connected client, which it
would need to in order to be able to make the relevant decisions on which file
to serve.

For live, you also have the complication that you need to keep adding files,
and updating the manifest to indicate where these new files are (The payer
checks back every couple of seconds to see if the manifest has changed). Any
latency at all in this means that a client may get back a stale manifest, and
then not know where the next video segment is supposed to come from, causing
stalling. (Numerous ways to work around this, but it is the real hurdle to
easy adaptive live streaming).

This is all a gross simplification, but at its most base level, that is how it
works.

You can (theoretically) do MPEG-DASH from a normal MP4 file, but that does
require CDN support (and possibly a single pass to add more info at segment
boundaries).

> Currently CDNs support HLS and Adobe's adaptive streaming, both of which
> aren't open standards and aren't part of HTML5 video.

HLS is an open standard[0], though not defined by a standards body; more Apple
have documented how they do it and others have adopted it as a defacto
standard.

And that is the biggest hurdle for DASH adoption - Apple devices.

As a content provider, I have* to support HLS if I want to support adaptive
streaming in iOS. Transcoding to another standard (one which is still in its
infancy) is just asking for non essential costs and headaches.

*Yes, it is possible to use MPEG-DASH, but not natively supported by Apple, so you are on your own.

Until Apple support MPEG-DASH you still need to provide a HLS stream.

DASH is a sprawling standard, and in theory you can use DASH with existing HLS
segments (MPEG-2 .ts files), but no-one supports it (or likely ever will).
DASH264 [1] is an attempt to keep it simple, and tie it down to a smaller
subset of codecs (x264/5 and the like), and seems to be making headway.

It's early days for MPEG-DASH, and it is gaining traction, helped by the fact
it has been learnt a lot of lessons from the likes of Flash and HLS.

0: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-
streaming...](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-19)
1: [http://dashif.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DASH-IF-
IOP-v3....](http://dashif.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DASH-IF-IOP-v3.0.pdf)

~~~
nacs
> in theory you can use DASH with existing HLS segments (MPEG-2 .ts files),
> but no-one supports it (or likely ever will)

Twitch.tv does exactly that for their non-Flash streaming (MPEG2 .ts files
delivered in pieces).

~~~
shmerl
Why doesn't Twitch work in Firefox without Flash?

~~~
_puk
Wouldn't be surprised if Firefox doesn't have all the relevant hardware decode
licences (MPEG-2 in this instance).

For a lot of codec related items support is dependent on the underlying OS,
and I don't think Windows ships with a general MPEG-2 licence.

~~~
shmerl
So again, it's about Apple being jerks and not supporting free codecs. However
ffmpeg can decode it, and Firefox relies on it now.

------
cmdrfred
Why are the top ten sites exempt?

~~~
tudorw
Because the internet is no longer fair :( Things are breaking, I cannot get a
mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties, no bounce
message just a void, I'm 10/10 on mail-test .com, DMARC, SPF, PTR, no RBL,
just m$ don't want me to send email to their users, a private RBL maybe, I
cannot know because they don't reply to communications regarding it, nothing
to do with this point, except it's asymptotic of a capitalist system with no
custodians, nobody is being paid to keep it fair, so it won't stay fair,
education of the public is a possible hope, but again, nobody pays for that
so...

~~~
flyinghamster
Could this be IPv6-related? I've run my own server for a long time, but when I
spun up a new VPS and enabled IPv6, I suddenly couldn't send mail to Comcast
customers. It seems that the single default IPv6 address fell into a
privately-blacklisted /64\. I was able to work around it by firewalling
Comcast's IPv6 MX hosts, but getting my own /64 was the real fix.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone with an @some-microsoft-property email
address, so I don't know whether I'll be having trouble sending things there.
I can reach Gmail and Yahoo (and after getting my own /64, Comcast) without
trouble, though.

EDIT: Hmmm, mail-test.com seems to be a parked domain.

~~~
cornedor
A college of my has struggled days with this issue, gmail wouldn't accept any
mail send from a IPv6, ended up disabling IPv6 at the end. It seems like
google only uses IPv6 for internal mail's, sending a mail to another account
sends them using IPv4. Even Facebook, Microsoft etc still use IPv4 for their
email's.

~~~
dingaling
Google do of course use IPv6 externally, but require rDNS for all inbound IPv6
SMTP sessions. Without that set for your MTA's host they'll reject
immediately.

------
gtirloni
I hope this is the final push Spotify needs to drop Flash from their web
player. I'm pretty satisfied with the service except for this.

------
esturk
Steam is still using Flash for their stats page.

[http://store.steampowered.com/stats/](http://store.steampowered.com/stats/)

As others have mentioned, Google finance is as well as well as other finance
sites. Makes you wonder how someone haven't introduced any HTML5 graphs for
stats yet...

------
lossolo
Finally, amount of exploits in flash is ridiculous and the fact that every
couple of months there are new critical ones.

------
jokoon
I started to watch a lot of youtube videos recently, but it doesnt seem all of
them require EME. Am I wrong? Because it seems I can download them fine with a
firefox addon, except a very few of them for obvious copyright reasons. I also
rarely see song videos that cannot be downloaded from mp3 conversion websites.
No idea if those websites are legal or not.

Anyway, on one side you have youtube advertising and adblockers, on the other
side they want to force people to stay online and not use the content offline,
but they can't have all of them not block ads.

I really wonder about the real cost of hosting youtube videos, and the money
they make from ads on youtube. I think there is a huge loss there. Youtube RED
might solve this.

------
ludamad
Sad that shumway isn't mature enough yet to replace Flash completely, else
this could have been a seamless change

------
samsonradu
I hate it when I see people talking about Flash as if it's the Web's cancer.
Remember Flash pushed the web heavily forward back when we had to install all
sorts of desktop applications and codecs just to watch a video or play a
simple game. It is an optional plugin that you can always disable. Not having
it at all would lead to a poorer UX in my opinion. Can't Chrome just have a
toggle Flash on/off in the toolbar and get over it? And let Flash die
naturally, when HTML5 catches up?

Edit

Also the propaganda [1] against it makes me laugh. The reason Google wants it
out is probably because it can't track the ads inside Flash apps.

[1]
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Googl...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Google-
Mozilla-pull-plug-Adobe-Flash-Tech-giants-disable-program-browsers-following-
critical-security-flaw.html)

"Leaked documents have revealed the program has a serious vulnerability that
lets hackers take over anyone's computer."

~~~
samsonradu
Hell I could rant about this for long. And some people who say Flash is
insecure (it probably is) are also the ones who install ad-blockers,
antiviruses and all sorts of creepy browser extensions. Well that s not safe
either, but Steve Jobs said Flash is bad so it must be. However Steve Jobs
knew he cannot monetize the web as well as the AppStore so the "open" web was
pulled backwards.

------
ajharrison
Steve Jobs was right ... 6 years ago.

~~~
supergreg
And Stallman was right 12 years ago.

------
jgh
ok, are Google planning on supporting HLS if they're ditching flash? I see
this site is saying that it does (with their player) -- so does it natively or
are these guys doing a transmux in Javascript similar to HLS.js and others?

~~~
cpeterso
Chrome supports HLS natively on Android, but not desktop. Safari and Edge
support HLS natively on desktop. Firefox doesn't support HLS natively on
Android or desktop.

------
romanlevin
You can still use Flash if you click-to-play, or you can white-list an
address.

~~~
nacs
Right now yes, this is an upcoming change.

~~~
csours
> Details:

Later this year we plan to change how Chromium hints to websites about the
presence of Flash Player, by changing the default response of
Navigator.plugins and Navigator.mimeTypes. If a site offers an HTML5
experience, this change will make that the primary experience. We will
continue to ship Flash Player with Chrome, and if a site truly requires Flash,
a prompt will appear at the top of the page when the user first visits that
site, giving them the option of allowing it to run for that site (see the
proposal[2] for the mock-ups). [1]

1\.
[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/chromium-
dev/HTML5$20by$20default/chromium-dev/0wWoRRhTA_E/__E3jf40OAAJ)

2\.
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i29aw1YXUy9qFX-
Ye4kvJj-4/edit#slide=id.p)

------
matwood
Meanwhile, Chrome shows it blocked flash from loading for the bitmovin site.

~~~
slederer
?

~~~
ratstew
I guess folks with click-to-play enabled are seeing something like this:
[http://i.imgur.com/WLaqlXo.png](http://i.imgur.com/WLaqlXo.png)

This was on Firefox by the way.

------
DarkLinkXXXX
"By the end of this year Chrome will begin ignoring Flash as Google takes
another step towards removing the “final Plugin” by replacing Flash with
HTML5."

The final plugin? What about widevine?

------
taneq
"What does this mean for video"? It means I won't ever have goddamn McAfee
Antivirus try to install itself on my computer when I update Flash.

~~~
eonw
this! and i wont have to update flash every few days because of its terrible
security.

------
consto
I don't care about what it means for video or audio. Unlike games they both
are easily adapted and will be adapted on the vast majority of sites.

------
juleska
They could fix the Chrome problems on Mac before to do this. I just can't see
any youtube video on Chrome, it simple doesn't work :), thx

------
puppetmaster3
blocks?

------
746F7475
Absolutely nothing, if your video site is still using flash you are already
way behind the times.

