4 ms·

It's not personal, and it's not about breaking the little guys. Disabling Flash to push the web towards standardized protocols and formats is going to painful

It's not personal, and it's not about breaking the little guys. Disabling Flash to push the web towards standardized protocols and formats is going to painful for all the browsers, and like many other changes, the biggest blocker is that one of the major vendors has to go first. Expect to see the same move from all vendors that still support flash (except for those that don't believe that flash is the devil). The Chrome team has to support the majority of their users or they risk alienating their user base, and there is a hard core browser war on out there :) They came up with a reasonable way to decide the "winners and losers", and aim to snip the long tail off. It also puts the supported sites on notice that they need to migrate functionality.

CJefferson 10y ago
I don't see how it can't be about "breaking the little guys". Google/Chrome has decided a very small list of companies (including themselves, with youtube) get non-broken sites, while everyone else has to cope with their websites breaking. No option of an opt-out. Why not at least lead from the front and block flash on youtube? Because it would seriously hurt youtube of course.
- ygjb-dupe 10y ago
  Because Youtube, unlike the vast majority of websites, have a dedicated security team to monitor and prevent malicious content being delivered to their users, active support for flash alternatives, and flash deprecation is already achieved (since early to mid 2015, I forgot the actual date) as Youtube will only use Flash if a more modern alternative isn't supported by the browser. In other words, you are arguing that new versions of Chrome should continue to support a legacy technology rather than expecting site owners to update their technologies. Why do you expect Google to accept the externalization of your costs in maintaining current standards? Why should Google continue to subsidize your website by managing error and crash report services, and spending engineering cycles supporting Flash bugs, or Chrome issues induced by Flash when you can't be bothered to migrate from old tech?
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    I just feel your argument falls apart when Google have decided that everyone has to stop using flash except them. Certainly they are minimising Flash, but why don't they get rid of it 100%, before imposing it on the rest of us? I don't expect Google to treat me specially, but I don't like Chrome having a special "If website is one of 10 special sites, get to use super-useful bonus browser feature without prompting". But I feel we are going around in circles.
    - ygjb-dupe 10y ago
      You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it, or accept that your users will have an inferior user experience, ultimately degrading to no user experience when flash is finally switched off. It sounds harsh, but it's a reality. The history of IT is littered with the corpses (and zombies) of dead tech, and Flash is fast on it's way there.

CJefferson 10y ago

I don't see how it can't be about "breaking the little guys". Google/Chrome has decided a very small list of companies (including themselves, with youtube) get non-broken sites, while everyone else has to cope with their websites breaking. No option of an opt-out. Why not at least lead from the front and block flash on youtube? Because it would seriously hurt youtube of course.

ygjb-dupe 10y ago
Because Youtube, unlike the vast majority of websites, have a dedicated security team to monitor and prevent malicious content being delivered to their users, active support for flash alternatives, and flash deprecation is already achieved (since early to mid 2015, I forgot the actual date) as Youtube will only use Flash if a more modern alternative isn't supported by the browser. In other words, you are arguing that new versions of Chrome should continue to support a legacy technology rather than expecting site owners to update their technologies. Why do you expect Google to accept the externalization of your costs in maintaining current standards? Why should Google continue to subsidize your website by managing error and crash report services, and spending engineering cycles supporting Flash bugs, or Chrome issues induced by Flash when you can't be bothered to migrate from old tech?
- CJefferson 10y ago
  I just feel your argument falls apart when Google have decided that everyone has to stop using flash except them. Certainly they are minimising Flash, but why don't they get rid of it 100%, before imposing it on the rest of us? I don't expect Google to treat me specially, but I don't like Chrome having a special "If website is one of 10 special sites, get to use super-useful bonus browser feature without prompting". But I feel we are going around in circles.
  - ygjb-dupe 10y ago
    You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it, or accept that your users will have an inferior user experience, ultimately degrading to no user experience when flash is finally switched off. It sounds harsh, but it's a reality. The history of IT is littered with the corpses (and zombies) of dead tech, and Flash is fast on it's way there.