Why do sites still use this garbage, it's been years since

Even google can't make a working html5 video player.

mad lintard with no gpu accel detected

>>55753675
Twitch and porn sites.

>>55753675
>i know nothing about web development hurr durr flash is bad cuz /g/ said so

>>55753902
no, flash just is objectively bad

>>55753698
literally have never had a problem with html5 video, even with browser-provided player (i.e. just the <video> and nothing else, in fact I'd prefer they didn't try to pull some custom look&feel crap on it)

>>55754085
heh, nice argument fagit

Because /f/ is the best board

>>55754085
>browser-provided player (i.e. just the <video> and nothing else, in fact I'd prefer they didn't try to pull some custom look&feel crap on it)
I thought I was the only one. I really like it, seems very lightweight. It's only missing a preview popup as you move your pointer over the progress bar, but I can live without that.

>>55753902
Flash is bad because it is a massive system vulnerability and halts the adoption of new HTML features.

>>55754531
>vulnerability
just like every other browser plugin that executes code. see @muhJava

>adoption
in fact it's exactly the opposite, flash drives the implementation of new HTML features as it has to replace it.

>>55753675
Fairly sure nothing new has been made in Flash for years?

Old sites take a long time to die.

>>55753675
How do I get html5 for free? And where does it really come from? Flash really is a piece of shit tbqh.

>>55753675
their fighting the system OP. to many still prefer flash vs html5 encoding. which for the record isnt any safer than flash. if you think it is your a tard who needs to go back to /b/ and eat a bag of dicks

>>55754597
>How do I get html5 for free?

Uninstall Internet Explorer 6

>>55754567
I don't disagree in regards to other browser extensions, Flash is just the worst of them because it is heavily targeted (since everyone has to have it).

I meant different websites adopting new features. If they already have Flash, they won't switch to the new, objectively better HTML standards.

>>55753675
The BBC are using it exclusively in their news feed. There is no fall-back to html5. News, by definition, is all new stuff.
Two questions:
Why is it so bad even after all this time?
Why does anyone use it, seeing how bad it still is?

>>55756038
>BBC
>Why is it so bad

>>55754411
literally the only legitimate reason to have flash

>>55756038
>Watching the SJW BBC ever

Here's your (you)

>>55753698
>tfw have been using html5 player for over a year without any issues

>>55756038
> fall-back to html5
In this phrase the problem is summarized. There is no benefit or features from moving away from flash other than "safety" or "standards". May be even worse, certainly implementation risk. Most website owners DGAF and rather leave things alone save money.

>>55753711
Twitch and low grade porn sites are retarded

File: 1439754712480.jpg (33KB, 469x469px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 469x469px

>>55756347
you're overlooking something crucial; flash has a shitty rep. Even among tech-illiterates the message that flash is shite has arrived (at least that is my personal experience).