1. 8
  1.  

  2. 4

    “Sites that only support Flash are exempted, as are the top 10 sites on the web for a year: YouTube.com, Facebook.com, Yahoo.com, VK.com, Live.com, Yandex.ru, OK.ru, Twitch.tv, Amazon.com, and Mail.ru”

    Ok, so they didn’t really change anything for the majority of browsing. They really just “turned on the youtube html5 beta but for all websites for all users”, ie. it will prefer html5, but sites can still veto it and do whatever they feel like. I thought they could have done this step years ago and at this point they should be treating flash and flash video as a “ do you want to enable flash for this site, just this once, always?” banner.

    1. 20

      According to Peter Kasting (a Chrome dev) all the news sites are getting it wrong: https://plus.google.com/+PeterKasting/posts/5ioK3cbucKz?sfc=true

      1. 3

        Exempting the top 10 websites seems pretty silly too; they’re allowed to have shitty security and the rest of us aren’t?

        1. 3

          Breaking the top sites is just going to drive users to another browser

          1. 5

            In my experience, it drives users to other websites. Bear in mind the fact that the ‘average’ user doesn’t know the difference between Google, Google Chrome and the Internet.

            If over 50% of web users couldn’t use their sites, I’m sure the big websites would come up with an html5 player very quickly.

            1. 3

              For what it’s worth, twitch took about a year to develop a HTML5 player. It’s in general availability now, but it took a long time to fully develop it.

              Relevant links: https://blog.twitch.tv/html5-player-turbo-beta-starts-today-135d1b7baa65#.95js7ln4u https://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/articles/2477288

              1. 3

                Yeah, html5 playback wasn’t a massive priority at that time. I understand that development can take some time, but we’ve known about the demise of flash for a long time now. And users having to click a button to activate flash isn’t a huge deal, the site is still usable.

              2. 1

                I’m sure in reality it’s a mix, and Google are hedging their risks.

                1. 1

                  Depends on the website.

                  I’d use something else instead of youtube/amazon - there’s always somewhere else to get entertainment/shop, but there isn’t an alternative to facebook - it’s what too many social groups use, and if you want to keep being included in those groups you have to use it.

                  1. 3

                    I use facebook too, sans flash, and it works fine! :-)