Flash player alternative

[hedron]

Flash player sucks.

Not only that, there's no 64bit version for linux.

I'm wondering is if anyone has figured out a way to get a site like youtube to play flv or similar files via a plugin that substitutes itself for the flash swf player?

I've been using gnash player, but it is still in beta and doesn't work on the vast majority of video sites. I'd prefer to use something like the vlc plugin. I was using that for a while by downloading the flv file with Flash Video Resources Downloader and playing in firefox but that doesn't work anymore and it didn't work on a lot of sites.

Why do websites use flash player anyway? I remember watching video on the internet before youtube and it worked much better with a dedicated media plugin.

[Leak]

Flash player sucks.

Not only that, there's no 64bit version for linux.
Yes, there is... (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/)

np: Jürgen Paape ft. Alison Degbe - Come Into My Life (Kompakt Total 9 (Disc 1))

[littleD]

I agree. Too many resources are used (ram, cpu) just to play simple videos. If you are using Firefox, You can try MediaPlayerConnectivity addon. Last time i tried i had some troubles with MPC but some videos worked on youtube though. Secondly i dont know how it can behave on linux. Anyway its worth of trying if u really hate flash.

[Leak]

Why do websites use flash player anyway? I remember watching video on the internet before youtube and it worked much better with a dedicated media plugin.
Because for the majority of people it's much less of a hassle than trying to get a plugin for every other possible video format. Most people even have it installed already, imagine that!

Also, the Windows version (which IS the most used one) is a whopping 1.8MB compared to VLC's almost 16MB or 24MB for WMP for XP. And it supports hardware decoding of video, which VLC certainly doesn't - that makes the "resource consumption" argument go right out the window.

Sorry, I don't like flash either when it's misused as an HTML replacement, but for stuff like integrated video or animation it's currently the best solution out there...

np: Dubshape - Droplets (Early Night Mix) (Kompakt Total 9 (Disc 2))

[hedron]

I agree. Too many resources are used (ram, cpu) just to play simple videos. If you are using Firefox, You can try MediaPlayerConnectivity addon. Last time i tried i had some troubles with MPC but some videos worked on youtube though. Secondly i dont know how it can behave on linux. Anyway its worth of trying if u really hate flash.

Thanks. I'll give that a try.

Because for the majority of people it's much less of a hassle than trying to get a plugin for every other possible video format. Most people even have it installed already, imagine that!

So, in other words because people are stupid?

Sorry, I don't like flash either when it's misused as an HTML replacement, but for stuff like integrated video or animation it's currently the best solution out there

Hm... I don't mind it when they substitute it for html, but using it as a media player really irks me. I don't see how it can be the best solution when media player plugins work better. At least, that's been my experience. Flash player is good for tech support. They don't have to write a page describing how to install a media plugin, even though Windows Media Player Plugin should already be installed with every copy of Windows, or have to get a million emails from idiots who are too stupid to figure out how to put file X into folder Y. It's not good for a power user who maybe wants some additional configuration options or a website which would rather stream its videos as opposed to using youtubes limited functionality. Plus, it's a monopoly. There is no competition for Adobe.

OK, I'm going to end my rant there.:D

[Leak]

So, in other words because people are stupid?
That's got nothing to do with people being stupid - it's just much less of a support nightmare for the sites that want to embed video since it just works once you have the plugin installed, which most people do. The success of YouTube et al clearly shows this.

If the video doesn't play with some obscure media plugin what's a small site operator to do? Replicating your setup is not going to happen...

Anyway, that's all I've got to say (and you'll hear from me) on that topic.

np: Moonbeam - You Can Hear Them (100)

[smok3]

Why do websites use flash player anyway? I remember watching video on the internet before youtube and it worked much better with a dedicated media plugin.

the real web approach would be of course to gently 'degrade' things, Holland goverment is doing this the right way imho, explained in this pdf:
http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/minvws.pdf
But of course not every smallish site can afford something like that.

p.s. what they miss (in this pdf) is the ability for the user to select, like even if i have a plugin version xy, i might still want to use some other method, maybe download...