4 ms·

This is quite a shot across the bow by Apple. As the post says, all previous (and existing!) laptops and desktops ship with Flash preinstalled. Whereas I can un

by cletus 16y ago

This is quite a shot across the bow by Apple. As the post says, all previous (and existing!) laptops and desktops ship with Flash preinstalled. Whereas I can understand the motivation for it missing from iDevices, this makes far less sense. This comes at about the same time that Apple deprecates Oracle's Java from OS X. Is this a general move against preinstalling third party libraries or unrelated? Perhaps it signals Apple's belief that both technologies are moribund, if not dying outright. Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life. This can matter even when there aren't obvious Flash widgets on pages you visit. Flash is used for ads and any number of tracking processes. As much as some will love to pour hate on Apple for this move I think the real failure here belongs to Adobe who has been satisfied to sit on their laurels blaming Apple for victimizing them rather than delivering a compelling Flash experience on mobile devices or OS X (3+ years after the iPhone's release only now is full Flash running on mobile (Android) devices and reports are mixed on the experience).

sigzero 16y ago
"This comes at about the same time that Apple deprecates Oracle's Java from OS X." That isn't what they are doing at all. You read whatever you read incorrectly. Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX.
- nir 16y ago
  > Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX Isn't it also the only version of Java known to run reliably on OSX?
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I would imagine Oracle will fix that problem.
    - malandrew 16y ago
      Somehow I don't think so. Oracle is a pure B2B play. Apple computers are still a rarity in the enterprise, and in those companies that do have Apple computers are most likely not Oracle's target market. Oracle might try to remedy this situation eventually, but my bet is that it will be too little, too late.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        Oracle's products are available for OS X and they need Java for their installers / management consoles.
    - pohl 16y ago
      Indeed, they were somewhat forced to maintain their own port of Sun's JDK because Sun was in a position of power and Apple was perpetually "beleaguered" back then. In contrast, Sun had no choice but to put resources into maintaining the Windows version of the JDK. Perhaps Apple has grown to the point where they can expect Oracle to deliver the JDK on Mac if they want to have a presence there. If not Oracle, then the OpenJDK community. Either way, if it's wanted badly enough, it will happen. The long-shot bet would be an LLVM/VMKit implementation that is clean of Sun code.
    - nir 16y ago
      Maybe they will, maybe not. But for the moment Apple is effectively dropping Java support, and that's not a minor thing. I'm writing this on an MBP and might well post from a Macbook Air someday but I think Hacker News is giving Apple a very non-Hackerlike treatment. They're clearly moving their computers to a much more controlled iPhone/iPad model.
rmc 16y ago
> Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life. This can matter even when there aren't obvious Flash widgets on pages you visit. Flash is used for ads and any number of tracking processes. If that's true, it still doesn't help mot users. I would guess that most users will install Flash pretty quickly after getting their laptop. They will then be subject to flash on all webpages, negating any battery savings.
Someone 16y ago
"Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life" Supporting multiple similar runtimes (HTML+JavaScript vs Flash vs Java vs SilverLight vs somebody else's kitchen sink) may make sense, but eats disk space, and, once people start using them, RAM and CPU bandwidth (due to less sharing of code between programs). Including Flash and Java made sense a couple of years ago on the Mac, but when designing the iPhone, Apple, as they always do, revisited earlier decisions, and decided they should go. Given RAM constraints, I can see why. On these new MacBooks, I guess Flash was dropped not because of RAM constraints, but because the disk is relatively small. It is but a tiny part of that 64 GB, but they probably must make many small cuts to give the user as much space as possible for his own stuff.
cosmicray 16y ago
> Whereas I can understand the motivation for it missing from iDevices, this makes far less sense. How about support costs. If Apple doesn't supply it, and you install it, then have problems, who ya gonna call ? I'd say, call Adobe. Let their support call numbers spike off the chart.
cale 16y ago
Adobe needs a good kick in the ass. Spend a day in any of their flagship design apps and let the pain begin. Inconsistant UI, constant errors... their products have gone down hill and Flash is no exception. Adobe needs product leaders that care. I think Apple is not so subtly trying to send them that message.
calloc 16y ago
You might even be looking into it to far ... the last time Apple shipped Flash with their OS they pressed a vulnerable version onto their DVD's that were used to install the OS and that made them look bad. This time around that just won't be possible.

by cletus 16y ago

sigzero 16y ago

"This comes at about the same time that Apple deprecates Oracle's Java from OS X." That isn't what they are doing at all. You read whatever you read incorrectly. Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX.

nir 16y ago
> Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX Isn't it also the only version of Java known to run reliably on OSX?
- protomyth 16y ago
  I would imagine Oracle will fix that problem.
  - malandrew 16y ago
    Somehow I don't think so. Oracle is a pure B2B play. Apple computers are still a rarity in the enterprise, and in those companies that do have Apple computers are most likely not Oracle's target market. Oracle might try to remedy this situation eventually, but my bet is that it will be too little, too late.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Oracle's products are available for OS X and they need Java for their installers / management consoles.
  - pohl 16y ago
    Indeed, they were somewhat forced to maintain their own port of Sun's JDK because Sun was in a position of power and Apple was perpetually "beleaguered" back then. In contrast, Sun had no choice but to put resources into maintaining the Windows version of the JDK. Perhaps Apple has grown to the point where they can expect Oracle to deliver the JDK on Mac if they want to have a presence there. If not Oracle, then the OpenJDK community. Either way, if it's wanted badly enough, it will happen. The long-shot bet would be an LLVM/VMKit implementation that is clean of Sun code.
  - nir 16y ago
    Maybe they will, maybe not. But for the moment Apple is effectively dropping Java support, and that's not a minor thing. I'm writing this on an MBP and might well post from a Macbook Air someday but I think Hacker News is giving Apple a very non-Hackerlike treatment. They're clearly moving their computers to a much more controlled iPhone/iPad model.

rmc 16y ago

> Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life. This can matter even when there aren't obvious Flash widgets on pages you visit. Flash is used for ads and any number of tracking processes. If that's true, it still doesn't help mot users. I would guess that most users will install Flash pretty quickly after getting their laptop. They will then be subject to flash on all webpages, negating any battery savings.

Someone 16y ago

"Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life" Supporting multiple similar runtimes (HTML+JavaScript vs Flash vs Java vs SilverLight vs somebody else's kitchen sink) may make sense, but eats disk space, and, once people start using them, RAM and CPU bandwidth (due to less sharing of code between programs). Including Flash and Java made sense a couple of years ago on the Mac, but when designing the iPhone, Apple, as they always do, revisited earlier decisions, and decided they should go. Given RAM constraints, I can see why. On these new MacBooks, I guess Flash was dropped not because of RAM constraints, but because the disk is relatively small. It is but a tiny part of that 64 GB, but they probably must make many small cuts to give the user as much space as possible for his own stuff.

cosmicray 16y ago

> Whereas I can understand the motivation for it missing from iDevices, this makes far less sense. How about support costs. If Apple doesn't supply it, and you install it, then have problems, who ya gonna call ? I'd say, call Adobe. Let their support call numbers spike off the chart.

cale 16y ago

Adobe needs a good kick in the ass. Spend a day in any of their flagship design apps and let the pain begin. Inconsistant UI, constant errors... their products have gone down hill and Flash is no exception. Adobe needs product leaders that care. I think Apple is not so subtly trying to send them that message.

calloc 16y ago

You might even be looking into it to far ... the last time Apple shipped Flash with their OS they pressed a vulnerable version onto their DVD's that were used to install the OS and that made them look bad. This time around that just won't be possible.