Note: Plugins, not extensions.

I have 5 plugins installed and enabled in firefox. Of those, only Flash is usually used so I could reasonably easily dispense with the others, which are all media players based on Totem (this is linux Mint - windows may be different). There are a further 6 installed but disabled (ie I never use them). I suppose I could try disabling the other media players as well.

I would really like an internet where flash was obsolete!

For instance if this gets in the way of people using Firefox and Youtube, or any of their favorite sites, they'll switch to Chrome or something else not doing this.

Maybe Apple just became a big Firefox supporter and this is how they got a big fat check?

I'm not sure why, but recently Firefox seems hell bent on getting rid of their loyal user base.

Smooth move Firefox.

Firefox seems hell bent on getting rid of their loyal user base

incrediBILL,

I'm not nearly so negative about this. I don't think click to play for plugins creates too much cognitive friction, even among less tech-savvy users. Additionally, most plugin generated content is ads or junk, so click to play will give users a cleaner default experience.

Sorry, I run a photography directory and I can tell you there are literally hundreds of thousands of sites delivery full Flash content as they drank the Adobe kool-aid back in the day and are now being punished.

Many people creating cool content sites and games used plugins and many of them spent their entire development budget doing it so rewriting it for HTML 5 isn't happening anytime soon for many of them.

Now they're being told "We're sorry, but you should just go out of business"

This sums if all up:
[wix.com...]

Funny, this level of internet extinction seems to be OK but if Google knocks someone off page 1 we'd all be calling for blood.

Interesting.

IMO that's coming next, Google will start giving a "penalty" for plug-in content as well and deal all these fine sites, often with thriving businesses, a final kiss of death and nobody will care.

Now they're being told "We're sorry, but you should just go out of business"

No, but they are going to have to accept that their websites will not work for an increasing number of people. Flash does not work on iOS, and its poorly supported on Android. If the BBC would provide a better alterative for iplayer radio outside the UK I would not install Flash on anything.

Firefox is not completely blocking Flash as Apple has done. It just requires one extra click to start Flash running. I have been using Flash block for years, as far as I am concerned this just means one less extension to install.

The Wix infographic is propaganda from a company that is locked into Flash. Only 40% of web browsers support HTML5? Yes, if you insist on full support. On the other hand all modern browsers (even IE from 9 onwards) support key elements like audio, video and canvas - that is enough to replace most uses of Flash. Support for WebGL is almost as good, but IE prior toe 11 and most mobile browsers do not support it.

I do not believe 99% of browsers have a Flash plugin installed either. There is no way that iOS devices are less than 1% of the installed base of web browsers. Then add the number of Android devices that do not have Flash installed (its no longer in the Play Store, and does not work on all devices) and proportion of desktops that do not have Flash installed.

As for SEO, Flash content may be indexable, but I very much doubt that it can be indexed and analysed as well as HTML.

for instance if this gets in the way of people using Firefox and Youtube

Youtube now supports HTML 5 and the HTML5 version works in recent versions of all the major browsers.

Sorry, I run a photography directory and I can tell you there are literally hundreds of thousands of sites delivery full Flash content as they drank the Adobe kool-aid back in the day and are now being punished.

Just as sites that used the Java plugin were punished when that became less popular.

While this will add another level of user action, I doubt it will much change the landscape of the web for some years to come. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Is it a bad idea? Well, probably not. That said, I don't like the idea of pharting around with FF, my browser of choice as I'm not a fan of change for change's sake. There has to be a really good reason to change things.

From what I read, flash is the only one not included in the click-to-play list. It is given free range. Except for the more careful of us who, as mentioned by graeme, run flash-block as a layer of safety and security between firefox and flash, one of the most bug-ridden and exploitable programs ever.

Oh, as well as IOS, linux is also on adobe's can't-be-bothered list. Once HTML 5 is in general use, flash will be history.

Personally, on linux, I view flash about once every few months. But that's probably just me. :)

I read the link and maybe I missed it, or more likely, just don't understand.

Does this affect all versions of FF, or just new versions going forward?

linux is also on adobe's can't-be-bothered list

This has been a constant source of frustration for me, since I'm addicted to Creative Suite. Of course there are linux alternatives, but, in my opinion, they are not nearly as good.

Personally, on linux, I view flash about once every few months.

I doubt that I could go that long, especially on my home, casual browsing and entertainment machine, but I might try disabling flash on my main work computer at the office and see how intrusive not having flash would be.

I know that I installed java for quite a while out of habit for while after it lost its widespread use.

Converting galleries and slideshows from flash to jQuery isn't massively difficult.

Full flash sites could be in a world of hurt.