Serious question: why are people still using Flash? I'm surprised by the number of websites that use it.
A lot of people seemed to be surprised this is the case but tell me what single live streaming protocol is supported across all browsers without a plugin?
With Flash you can stream HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) to a Flash player in full browsers while just directly loading the same HLS playlist in mobile browsers via native players (iOS / Android).
This means you can deliver live streaming over the same audio/video codec (H.264/AAC) and over the same protocol (HLS). This vastly simplifies your streaming infrastructure and removes the need for transcoding on the server, unless you just want to create different qualities for adaptive bitrate streaming.
It would be nice if "desktop" browsers all supported HLS and H.264/AAC natively, that would be a real Flash killer.
That said, I truly wish these remaining use cases for Flash were unnecessary, I would not miss it at all.
- Plain old HTTP WebM stream. Only one resolution, but it works. - MPEG-DASH - very similar to HLS, but implementable in Javascript via MSE APIs in browsers today. - WebRTC - low latency streaming, in some cases it might make sense to use this over MPEG-DASH even for one-to-many streaming cases, like interactive lectures and the like.
Unfortunately several browsers lag behind in implementing the required APIs, so this does not solve all problems yet. But the problem isn't creating any new protocols, it's just getting adoption.
As for H.264, it's mostly a solved problem with hardware decoders and OpenH264 (currently not used for <video> playback, but could be). AAC, however, costs more to license and is much more problematic, so there will always be some browser vendors that don't ship it.
Also, it used to be the case that Flash had better DRM controls on it, but I'm pretty sure that reason is no longer the case since Encrypted Media Extensions got rolled out.
However, that doesn't explain why Facebook's on-site video player uses Flash.
Not only that, but images flagged as "gif" also prompt me to install flash (amazing how oddly these new features get implemented!).
Honestly, one of the biggest reasons to run an ad blocker is the significantly reduced attack surface.
If uninstalling flash only causes you to miss out on ads, it makes uninstalling flash that much more attractive. Which makes the advertisers want to get off flash that much sooner.
It needs probably just one or two more use cases to disappear (Facebook video is one of them), and its final death will be quite quick.
It seems to be the case in general for most sites that offer HTML5 alternatives that the Flash version is much more solid. Maybe using HTML5 video in these domains is inherently error-prone, maybe it isn't, but in practice it almost always gets screwed up.
Plus people still use flash games and sites like Newgrounds.
Among the various issues I've seen:
* Sometimes refuses to play anything, without showing any errors, requiring a reload of the page.
* Occasional poor performance.
* Audio/video desynchronization
* Scrubbing the video often causes it to get stuck, refusing to play, until I scrub it again
* Videos often take longer to start playing than with the flash player.
* Fullscreen is sometimes broken
* Switching from regular mode to "theater" mode sometimes leaves the video playing in its original size, anchored to the corner of the now-larger black area that it should be playing in.
I think it's gotten a little better recently (i.e. I see issues less often), but it's still far from great.
And before you ask, I've seen these issues in both Safari and Chrome.
For reference, I use chromium (not chrome) on Linux (which does not come with flash bundled).
As for the issues you're experiencing - are you sure you have GPU acceleration turned on?
I'm using Chrome and CPU usage is only 45-50% for perfect 1080p 60FPS playback.
Not on older (3y+) machines.
> make me think of some kind of adobe shills maybe
Delusions or paranoia may be?
Also 9 year old is quite a frac cry from your initial post of "(3y+) machines", 9 year old machine almost guaranteed has absolutely no support in hardware for modern codecs. So no wonder has strong limitations on resolution. Still flash working better than HTML5 players is still suspicious to me, I still believe with correct configuration reverse should be true, as flash is basically just another layer in between screen and bits on the net. Though possibly not applicable in all cases.
> Still flash working better than HTML5 players is still suspicious to me,
Do you write programs for life or what? It is not a problem with HTML5 players, it a problem the way they are written. Flash is an older product, with better support of legacy or underpowered products.
> I still believe with correct configuration reverse should be true
Yes, the correct configuration is "more powerful CPU".
And there's still a truckload of fun games available only in flash form, which makes flash relevant even if the number of new stuff coming out in it dwindles.
I'd say they're open to ditching Flash.
IRC for chat is absolutely new to me and would actually be quite nice..
Edit: proof: http://i.imgur.com/myfsoNv.png
The HTML5 solution is usually to run DASH via a JS demuxer utilizing MSE.
I actually just filed a complaint on their forums.
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/BUG-Adobe-Flash-...
For all I know they're doing Unifi 5 in pure flash. I wouldn't be surprised.
Unifi 4.x is still beta and I'm not sure if it still requires flash (Though for Ubnt stable means beta, beta means alpha, alpha is unlikely to even run.)
Last I checked AirControl did too (managing many AirOS devices)
I'm guessing that Facebook encodes video h264 which isn't natively supported in Firefox; rather it relies on support in the operating system. I'm not sure if Chrome on Linux supports h264, however since Chrome also includes its own Flash player I guess that Facebook may be using their own flash player anyway.
And chat trough their irc server.