"The HTML5 one is superior in almost every way"

Not it isn't. The flash player is actually superior in almost every way. And like you, I won't provide any data to back that opinion up. I'll just use the word "almost" to give me some room in case someone jumps in with actual data.

Yes, that's right. It's quite literally an opinion. I didn't realise that we had to caveat everything we type on HN with that.

THE ABOVE TEXT IS ALSO OPINION.

The HTML5 player has been the default on YouTube since January: http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flas...

Quite a few player embeds on the pages I visit still default to Flash, rather annoyingly. That's been my experience at least.

You're supposed to use an <iframe> to embed these days, but some sites still use the flash-only <object>/<embed>.

no-flash is a Firefox extension (written by a Mozilla employee) to rewrite Flash-only object embeds to use YouTube's HTML5 player:

https://github.com/hfiguiere/no-flash/

Mozilla may include this functionality in Firefox directly:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=769117

Mobile Safari did this from very early on! (iPhone OS 2 or earlier) Though they didn't use YouTube's official HTML5 player.

Google has forced me to use YouTube with the HTML5 player for months now. There isn't an option anywhere to switch back to the Flash player.

I thought this change was universal, but you seem to be suggesting it's not. Did I wind up trapped in the less friendly part of an A/B test?

I use this Firefox add-on to toggle between the flash and the HTML5 player: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/youtube-flash...

I don't know if there is a similar addon for Chrome.

The YouTube HTML player removed the "watch later" list button which I used to use a lot.

So, there is a very specific example of how the YouTube Flash player was superior to the HTML5 one. At least for my use case.

[I doubt this an HTML vs Flash issue, though]

I'm glad if they've removed it, I accidentally clicked it a lot.

You can still choose Add To > Watch Later.

What irritates me is that flash is required for google music. I really like google music over all the other radio services, plus I have some music in my lib, but I've resorted to just looking up albums on youtube. If it's an absolute must have for some technical reason, a desktop client would be nice as an alternative.

In GM settings, you can opt in for HTML5 audio. I have been using it for more than a year, it works extremely well.

Thanks for this. I'm not sure why they wouldn't use a fallback mechanism instead of making this an explicit setting?

Edit: This is strange. I went to change the setting and it is greyed out and cannot be changed. This is in both chrome AND firefox. Both are up to date with most recent version, and my macbook was bought this year. Neither have adblockers enabled.

It is indeed strange, I have been using this option for some time. Works like a charm on 2015 mbps, as well as older ones. There is maybe an issue with your specific model ? That might also explain why it is not a default yet.

And Google Finance... It is rather ironic half of their sites are going to break, unless they conveniently add an exception.

> It is rather ironic half of their sites are going to break, unless they conveniently add an exception.

Those sites aren't going to break, even without adding any exceptions. There's no definition of "essential" that would exclude Flash content on Google Finance. As mentioned above, the exact heuristics they're using are:

"TLDR, essential content is either: 1) On the same domain as the page 2) Considered "Large" (at least 298 x 398, certain aspect ratio, minimum total area), with an exception for tiny content (likely transport plugins)."

One might say that it's convenient that there's an exception for "essential" content...

And one would be wrong (at least in one's implication). There's enough sites on the Web still using Flash to deliver part of the core site that you don't need fevered conspiracy theories to explain why actual core site content wouldn't be clocked.

Will need Flash for live streams for a while

I tried html5 on youtube for a week while scaling is nice (the video size increases for window/resolution size), the quality is very poor the same video with same 480p in flash much clear. Though I don't like flash because it crashes many times it is the only way to watch clear 360p or 480p video. Also flash detects 480p as default for my 8 mb internet connection whereas HTML5 will choose 240p now and then. Also you tube menu (choose xxxP or annotation on/off) is inverted L for any thing with sub menus whereas flash is strait oneclick. The other the lightswitch plugin does not work properly with html5 . so I will flash stays as it is only way for me to watch good quality video.

The quality is because YouTube's HTML5 player defaults to Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP. If you manually change the quality setting to something other than Auto, you get better quality.