Re:Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
by soccerdave on Friday May 20, 2016 @08:56AM
(#11737370)
Because conveniently several of them are Google properties. If their sites weren't top 10, but top 20, then we would see the top 20 sites exempt.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
"several"
Aside from YouTube, I don't see any other Google properties in the list.
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/...
Re:Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
by bitmapbrother on Friday May 20, 2016 @10:04AM
(#11737828)
YouTube is the only Google property on the list. In fact, there are more Amazon properties than Google. So the "point" you were trying to make didn't work out.
Re:Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
by maxerickson on Friday May 20, 2016 @09:35AM
(#11737612)
Why would they build html5 versions of their properties and then serve flash versions to their html5 browser?
Re:Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
by bitmapbrother on Friday May 20, 2016 @12:22PM
(#11739129)
I believe this has more to do with supporting old browsers that don't have support for HTML5 video.
Because they don’t have html5 versions of all of their properties? several of them are still flash-only, for example, Google Finance.
Re:Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5
by maxerickson on Friday May 20, 2016 @10:05AM
(#11737840)
That's not a response to anything I said.
My point is that they are building html5 versions of many of their sites (like Youtube, probably the biggest site supporting html5). Why would they care about serving the old flash versions of those sites to their html5 browser?
I agree that they have not moved all of their properties in lockstep over to html5. But I think Youtube supporting html5 provides more information about their motivations than the number of domains they are putting on the default whitelist.