Google Chrome will beat Flash to death with a shovel: Why... won't... you... just... die! By the end of the year, Google Chrome will block virtually all Flash content and make whatever's left click-to-play by default. In September, Chrome 53 will kill off all background Flash content, which is about 90 per cent of Flash on the web, according to Google. Then in December, Chrome 55 will use HTML5 for video, …
Ah, the BBC and Flash, remember when they last revamped their website and removed most of the text based stories and replaced them all with video feeds ripped out of the news channel? Cue a much touted "try our new mobile site" which was supported by little to no mobile browsers, I wonder how many readers that cost them?
"replaced them all with video feeds ripped out of the news channel? "
BBC staff presumably all have mobiles with unlimited data.
Back in the day when people tried to sell us website designs we used to say "now show us on dialup". The equivalent should be midrange phones, not the 6s+ that the BBC staff presumably use.
"remember when they last revamped their website and removed most of the text based stories and replaced them all with video feeds"
That habit cheeses me off SO MUCH. For a snippet of information that I could ingest in text in 1 second, I now have to sit and wait for a journalist who's far too delighted in themselves to goddamn well get on with it!
They used to put summary text below - now they're stopping doing even that. It's like wasting other people's resources without thinking about it is becoming a habit or something. They don't seem to realise they're rubbing our noses in it.
It's not just the BBC. It's people like Twitch, Rooster Teeth, and a whole bunch of other people that say "what security risk?" when I ask "when are you moving away from flash so I can use your site? I don't have it installed because it's such a security risk"
They get pissy at me for even bringing the topic up. So I don't buy their sponsorships any more and I watch their YouTube channel with all of the ad-blockers.
100% agree. For many developers though the problem is in the streaming system and BrightCove, Comcast's The Platform and others need to remove the streaming option for Flash completely. For me the problem is that Flash is like the mythical Hydra in that the moment you cut off one head another appears: in this case someone needs to chat with Amazon about trying to prevent RTMP Streaming using Flash.
I always have add-ons installed to force videos in flash player. Internet is expensive here in south Asia. Bandwidth is also very limited. With flash we could use the click to play feature(which Google now forces) and stop unnecessary data spending. But even when autoplay is disabled(which you have to do manually on many sites every week), HTML video player always load parts of every video which wastes a lot of data on many sites like facebook.
I expect most El Reg readers have been blocking Flash one way or another for years. Certainly anyone not wanting their computer p0wned has. Got tired of those "Oh Gawd! Another Zero Day! Patch Right Away" headlines, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
I agree with Tomato42 that if Flash were a planet in some other solar system, we'd want multiple high-factional-c strikes (.999 c comes to mind) on it. And, just to be on the safe side, make the system's star go nova, too.
Good on Chrome for helping to finish off this monster.
I've never blocked flash. I've not even installed click to play. I started developing sites in Flash around 2006 but not done one for probably 5 years now. I have used the latest Flash to make an animated logo which was pretty easy but the end result file size was about 20 times what it would have been if .swf.
Not ONCE have I ever been a victim of an attack through Flash, a PDF, or had my computer 'prawned' or whatever that is.
Am I just really boring and not visiting Ukrainian fetish/ bondage sites enough to fall for this sort of thing?
Overall I don't see any issue with what Google are doing here - people who really want to play that game (including me), or learn in an education flash site can just click to play - and all those dodgy background flash trackers will get blocked.
However it feels like most people here in the comments are blaming flash for how the creepy advertisers or scammers are using it. People will exploit anything to make a buck... yes, it has a lot of bugs in it, and probably has too many features thus making it easier to exploit but you shouldn't knock a technology that millions of people use every day to play games, just because you don't like it.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why stop at Google bundling X with Y.
Nobody should be bundling anything onto the explicit download I clicked on.
If I want product X, then I download product X. I don't want Y, Z, some spyware toolbar or any other junk / hidden software.
If any product is good enough on its own, then people will get to know about it and will come and download it for themselves. If its junk on the other hand, then it will wither and die.
"If I want product X, then I download product X. I don't want Y, Z, some spyware toolbar or any other junk / hidden software."
Whoa. Let's return to the good old days of Netscape, when using the Internet required you to install a seemingly endless parade of players and add-ons.
Asking millions of browser users to find and install plugins for different media is a recipe for disaster.
Sorry, but the best user experience is when most common functionality is bundled with browser.
And yes, I don't even mind if my distro includes proprietary codecs when I install it.
@Barry.
You seem to be mixing a number of points here.
1. Licencing of things (due to cost or differing licencing terms) which prevents their inclusion in free OS's. Yes, CODEC's are common here. If people need things they will find the correct place and download it / pay the licencing fee. Alternately, there are distros that include the CODEC's having dealt with or ignored the restrictions - your choice on which way you go here.
2. Innovation driving extensions of current technologies as you mentioned for the early Internet. This will always happen as technologies evolve. The original vendor may not have the skills / desires / budget to add on, whereas others may. There's nothing wrong with that. Conversely others may add-in equivalent functionality as for example has happened with PDF readers in browsers. Often this is affected by licencing and copyright, so another example of the above.
3. Vendor knows best vs end user knows best. Personal choice is personal choice.
4. There is a world of differences between related downloads that are clearly displayed and delectable, such as your example of CODEC's for browsers compared to the downright underhanded methods that are used to use get software installed such as hiding the options 6 layers down, giving no options and using phrases like "deselect this box to enable install <blah>" whilst implying that the module is required or recommended
>If I want product X, then I download product X. I don't want Y, Z, some spyware toolbar or any other junk / hidden software.
Don't download software from dodgy websites ... easy ... if your OS does not have a central repository with tens of thousands of pieces of software, you are using the wrong OS.
@Hans 1 (The solo Hans, Hans Solo ? Change the font and you could be Sans Solo !)
You seem to be pushing the virtues of app stores. With the exception of open source ones, they tend remove choices and tax developers to publish, this also undermines the benefits of the broader internet.
Secondly, having looked at many app stores, there is poor quality control and in many cases the junk swamps the genuine / good apps. Most are junk, more junk, spyware, apps with hidden functionality, etc. so this is far from a working panacea.
The common trend here is that users will install anything if it looks free or has a cute kitty on it or offers free games etc.
I wonder how many users would select yes to the "Install Virus.exe" just to access the thing they originally decided they wanted ?
The one place I see Flash used all day every day is in Education. I would say at least 80% of the sites bought into at the school I work for use Flash.
Examination platforms use it too, and I can't see HTML5 taking on that role any time soon.
So, in schools, the more likely outcome from this is that Chrome will become less popular in favour of a browser which doesn't do this stuff.
Sadly. I would love to see Flash die.
Unfortunately this is true, largely due to the educational content being built up over many years there is a financial reluctance on behalf of the content originators to update to current technology. I teach a couple of online courses and a lot of the content is flash, java or shockwave based. All of these cause our students varying degrees of problems which are compounded by the locked down configurations school issued laptops have here in the US. I have no control over the content, I merely deliver the content and put out fires while the courses are running, last semester they were more like forest fires. I have been promised that the Fall semester will bring shiny new working content that will not have these issues... I'm not holding my breath.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
