10 ms·

Apple Is No Longer Bundling Flash Player With Mac OS X

102 points by pmjordan 16y ago

NathanKP 16y ago
I didn't think about the aspect of Flash updates. If Flash is no longer installed updated by Apple, I will have to download and install the Flash updates myself, or count on Adobe to handle updates. (Which judging from past experience with Adobe Flash player updates in Windows, might be suboptimal.) Ultimately I would like to go no flash, and probably could today. I don't play flash games, so I won't have a problem there. Both YouTube and Vimeo, the two video sites I use most, have an HTML 5 version, so I don't even need flash for that. Chances are if I uninstalled Flash today all I would miss are flash ads, and that would be a good thing, especially since getting rid of Flash closes another potential security hole.
- callahad 16y ago
  Chrome actually ships with its own, integrated copy of Flash. Which, coupled with Chrome's automatic updates, should keep you nicely patched.
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    I'll have to try a performance comparison, but the native HTML 5 video only uses about 10-11% processor power on my MacBook, allowing me to run it on batteries longer. I doubt that even Chrome's integrated flash can provide that sort of performance.
    - seanalltogether 16y ago
      Battery usage is dependent on both cpu and gpu power draw. It's more complicated to determine what the overall difference is between html5 and flash power drain.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      That's true on my Macbook as well, but it's also a lot less stable for some reason. Flash plays perfectly fine, while HTML5 video on YouTube in Chrome will fairly frequently cause weird graphics glitches or freeze a tab. Works perfectly fine in Linux, so not sure what the deal is.
- iheartmemcache 16y ago
  Quite a few sites use Flash sockets instead long-poll to maintain connections. Hypem.com is the first that comes to mind. Zed Shaw's Mongrel2 also features JSsockets [1] which uses a .swf for connection persistence as well. There's quite a few apps use Flash behind the scenes, and you won't notice it until it breaks. [1] http://code.google.com/p/jssockets/ http://code.google.com/p/jssockets/
  - swombat 16y ago
    I've had FlashBlock on for quite some time now, and I haven't noticed any apps mysteriously breaking. So at the moment I'd count that as pro-Flash FUD. (yes, I do use a lot of online apps)
    - mcav 16y ago
      Some flash blocking plugins automatically allow flash applets that are very small (which are often used for sockets, etc).
      - sudont 16y ago
        Correct. ClickToFlash's default (AFAIK) setting is to allow 1x1 and 0x0 flash items to load in the background. At least, that's how I think it operates. I block everything, and press command-control-f when a site doesn't work properly.
    - benologist 16y ago
      I don't think I'd call it FUD so much as a non-visible use of Flash. HTML5 and jQuery audio players are another example that often discretely relies on Flash as a fallback.
  - jmreid 16y ago
    Many sites use Flash to embed fonts as well.
    - NathanKP 16y ago
- meelash 16y ago
  I would strongly doubt there'll be any difference in penetration in the short-term. You may not be able to think of common use cases, or any at all, off the top of the head, but over the course of a year, chances are you'll come across some interesting website or feature on the web that requires flash. And the barrier to viewing it (installing Flash yourself) is really not that high. If you want to test it without actually uninstalling flash, just install ClickToFlash (for Safari) and you'll see many sites even use flash for non-dynamic things like buttons.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  You can install ClickToFlash to get a taste of it, so when you absolutely need to see some flash content, you can just click on it. http://clicktoflash.com/ http://clicktoflash.com/ Actually I don't miss Flash at all except for one place: street view on Google Maps, which is done in Flash and I find it useful to take a look when I have to go in some place I don't know (it helps a lot being familiar with the surroundings once you are there). Apart of that, I never enable Flash on other websites.
  - Yaggo 16y ago
    I would like to see clicktoflash pre-installed on Macs ;-)
    - nikster 16y ago
      Clicktoflash is the first thing I install on any new Mac - my own, or friend's. I find the internet unusable without Flash blocker. Flash uses are as follows: - Ads. Nobody needs those, and I actually dread the day Flash dies, because then these annoying ads will be HTML5 and maybe not as easy to block anymore. - Games. I know lots of people who play nothing but Facebook games all day. - Video. Not an issue anymore as most content is available in HTML5. If Apple finds an alternative solution for Flash games, they can kill Flash off completely. I don't feel like they're going there though, probably knowing that the day they try to kill Adobe will be the day Microsoft buys Adobe out.
  - pietro 16y ago
    Maps for iOS has a native implementation of Google Street View. It's much better than the desktop version, so I don't even use Flash for that.
nexneo 16y ago
Apple doesn't want to spend their time on any other platform's maintenance, make sense.
- yumraj 16y ago
  OK. So, shouldn't Apple remove perl, php, ruby, apache, and every other 3rd party software that it currently ships with since I'm sure Apple doesn't want to spend time maintaining those either. Curious mind wants to know, why just Flash and Java?
  - YooLi 16y ago
    How about because all those you list don't have user interface ties. Maybe because all those you list aren't heavily used by the majority where an outdated or exploit-prone version would matter. People who do use the examples you listed often install their own versions because the Apple versions are out of date.
    - nikster 16y ago
      Very good point there! Speaking of exploits - both Java and Flash run in the browser and are therefore susceptible to web based drive by attacks. None of the other technologies are exposed to the outside world.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - grinich 16y ago
    Apple can't fix bugs in Flash.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    To the extent that Apple depends on (say) Ruby, then they own the system ruby and have a responsibility to keep it up to date. So, for instance, when someone finds an Apache flaw, Apple has to bundle a security update for it, and may even have to alter ship dates to account for it. To the extent that Apple can decide that it does not depend on, say, Flash, then it makes sense for them to not to ship it. If they ship it, they own it, they have to fix it. If they don't ship it, they don't own it, and the vendor has to fix it. Which, in Adobe's case, makes perfect sense; Adobe's security flaws should not be Apple's problem if they don't have to be.
codebaobab 16y ago
The first thing that crossed my mind was: "Apple wants to force Adobe Flash into the Mac App Store". Now, the current App Store terms of service seem to preclude the distribution of plugins like Flash. But let's pretend, just for a minute, that they didn't. Apple would see the following advantages to having the Flash plugin on the App Store: 1) No need to worry about syncing Flash updates to OS X updates. No more risk of shipping an "outdated" version of Flash like happened with 10.6.4 back in the summer. 2) There is a visible, user friendly update stream (that is separate from the OS update stream.) This should enable users to easily always be using the latest version. 3) Apple can wield the hammer (as hard or as soft as it chooses) against bugs in the plugin--that's part of the terms of service in App Store. It makes it easy to push back on Adobe when they find bugs during the review process (even if the bugs they "find" are bugs that were known from previous releases.) And, who knows? Now that Safari 5 has an official plugin mechanism, perhaps the App Store will open up for Safari plugins in the not too distant future.
- smackfu 16y ago
  It really does make sense to move non Apple stuff out of the system updater, and into the app store updater. Flash and Java being the two main items. OTOH, it would make even more sense to wait until the app store exists.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Would Flash and/or Java even pass muster for admittance into the OS X AppStore?
    - irons 16y ago
      They would not. No plugins, no system infrastructure, not even System Preferences panes, just single-package apps.
- matwood 16y ago
  I was thinking the same thing although current app store rules would seem to disallow installing something like flash and Java. I really hope that Apple does end going this way and let 3rd parties manage their libraries in this manner.
frou_dh 16y ago
This is where "You need Flash to view this. Get it [here]" comes in. Non-technical users aren't going to manually install Flash if all they're presented with is a blank space. Luckily for Abobe they only need to see the former once.
smackfu 16y ago
I wish Apple would stop with these games and just do what's best for the consumer. Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today. OTOH it would make sense to move Flash to the OS X App Store when that is released, so that Adobe could manage their own updates. We'll see if that is an option, and it would be nice if Apple had waited until the App Store existed. Instead Adobe will need to have its own updater for Flash, right when Apple is coming out with a centralized update system. How dumb is that?
- irons 16y ago
  Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today. You may have noticed that Apple cleaned house on Wednesday. They announced the Mac app store, deprecated Java (and listed deprecated-Java as a disqualification to get into the app store), and shipped significant new hardware which offered a clean break on the software configuration, including the end of Flash as default kit. There's no provision in the app store as currently defined to carry anything except self-contained single-package application bundles, so no, you won't see Flash or any other plugins carried there in the foreseeable future.
- DougBTX 16y ago
  > just do what's best for the consumer Apple got caught shipping a Flash player with known security vulnerabilities, that's not good for "the consumer". They also claim that half the reported OS X crashes are due to Flash - which seem exaggerated, but if true, also bad for "the consumer".
  - YooLi 16y ago
    Honestly I don't think it's an exaggeration, even if technically I think they were talking about Safari crashes. Flash has crashed my Safari more times than I can excuse as 'these things happen'.
  - smackfu 16y ago
    And now Flash won't be included in the system updater, so now way more people are going to be running back-level versions. Bet that will really help with the crashing and security issues. This is exactly the reason Chrome moved to shipping with Flash included, and why Firefox now checks the flash version when it starts up. Apple is going backwards on this.
jsz0 16y ago
The platform provider should always be responsible for installation/upkeep whenever possible. In retrospect it seems a bit odd that OSX ever included Flash in the first place. Adding that extra distribution layer may give the user the illusion that Apple is responsible for keeping Flash updated. No one wants that responsibility. Not even Adobe. As far as I can tell the only way to keep Flash updated is to check Adobe's website every so often. I didn't hear a peep from Apple or Adobe about 10.1 being released. No automatic update here.
IdeaHamster 16y ago
Let me tell you a little story from the inside… So, when you build something as big and complex as an operating system, your single biggest enemy is: change. The more things change, the more you need to test and retest to be absolutely sure that those changes didn't have any unintended side-effects. This is why, in the process of reaching a GM build, the ability for groups to change components is gradually locked down. The final lock-down is GM, and this usually happens around 1 month before the first customers see the next OS. This time is needed to "prime the channel". That is: you need to press the disks, prepare the marketing material and the packaging, do all of the final validation testing, and start shipping the software to stores. In the case of SnowLeopard, that meant that development was done, and GM was declared, in the 3rd week of July. SnowLeopard shipped on Aug. 28th. Know what happened between those two dates? Flash Player v10.0.32.18 ships on July 30 with critical security fixes: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-10.html http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-10.ht... Remember all the fuss? No? Here's a reminder: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/snow-leopard-ships-with-vulnerable-flash-player/4175 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/snow-leopard-ships-with-v... In particular, people were incensed that installing SnowLeopard on top of their Leopard systems that already had an updated Flash player actually reverted to the vulnerable version. Why? Because Flash was part of the OS. It was part of the install package that gets laid down fresh, instead of being part of the user installed software that gets migrated from old to new OS. And because Adobe didn't get the Flash update to Apple before GM was declared.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  This is also what Gruber wrote at the time: http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/flash_snow_leopard http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/flash_snow_leopard
  - IdeaHamster 16y ago
    Gruber has good sources ;)
    - mkramlich 16y ago
patrickaljord 16y ago
Ubuntu and just about any Gnu/Linux distribution haven't been bundling the Flash player for years, nice to see Apple doing the same.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Neither has Microsoft. I know people are interested in anything that has to do with Apple, but I'm still attempting to determine what makes this newsworthy.
- hasenj 16y ago
  Apple is not interested in advancing "Free Software", so this has nothing to do with that.
jellicle 16y ago
Look, people. This move was done because Apple totally has your best interests at heart and is absolutely not in any way any sort of anti-competitive thing, because Apple simply doesn't have any sort of Flash-competitor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduia_%28software_framework%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduia_%28software_framework%... It was done because Apple loves you and wants to protect you, like a soft warm blanket over your head, pressing down tightly.
- sacrilicious 16y ago
  Pardon me pointing out the difference between a plug-in and a web framework. Believe you me, this is a headache, but you have the right to your own opinion, not your own facts.
  - jellicle 16y ago
    You probably ought to google "rich internet apps" to achieve a slightly greater level of understanding before commenting.
- chc 16y ago
  Apple's Flash competitor which it is engaging in anticompetitive practices to force on people is standard HTML, CSS and JavaScript? That's not exactly anticompetitive, given that those are not proprietary Apple technologies. Also, Apple has several more of these "Flash competitor" frameworks. There's at least SproutCore and PastryKit, and I think a few in addition to those.
- brudgers 16y ago
  Apple's Flash competitor is iOS, which normally requires fewer hardware resources, but doesn't run on anything other than Apple hardware. Among the advantages for Apple are better developer lock-in, better access to user data and stronger branding.
zmmmmm 16y ago
This seems to confirm an interesting and decisive change of strategy from Apple, and totally parallels the Java decision very closely. If you put these three things together: 1) Deprecate Java on Macs 2) Deprecate Flash on Macs 3) Deprecate all non-Apple-controlled apps on Macs by introducing the store If you put the three together it shows a strong and coordinated move to start reigning in free development on Macs and move it to a model where Apple totally controls the experience.
- whyenot 16y ago
  Adobe and Oracle are gaining control over Java and Flash, two things that previously Apple controlled themselves. The app store isn't replacing the ability to install application on your own, it's just another option to purchase and install apps in a way that may be more familiar and user friendly for those who use Apple's phones. This seems more like Apple reducing their control over the user experience.
  - code_duck 16y ago
    In what ways did Apple control Sun or Adobe more than Oracle or... Adobe? What do you mean?
    - whyenot 16y ago
      Currently, Apple controls the Java implementation for OS X. In the future they will not. Currently Apple controls what version of Flash ships with OS X. In the future they will not. The OP asserts that these changes will increase Apple's control over the user experience. To me, it looks like with these changes Apple is actually giving up control over some things.
      - code_duck 16y ago
        Sorry, I think I read your earlier statement backwards. Thanks for the clarification.
- stevejohnson 16y ago
pacomerh 16y ago
I really don't think it's a big deal. If people need flash they'll make sure they have it. This just throws the responsibility to the user. It's reasonable for apple to do this, but looks/sounds a little over the top.
bsergean 16y ago
Apple is the new Microsoft.
jdavid 16y ago
1st, what made macs awesome is how well they target multiple platforms. having access to apple, linux and windows user on one device was awesome. 2nd, chrome and firefox will still auto download flash, so really what this does is it makes safari users act like IE users in that they won't have all of the plugins. it seems that apple is doing this so they rapidly iterate for Mac OS (next) without vendor support. sounds like apple is getting quite before something big in the next OS.
- nikster 16y ago
  Apple is all about rapid iteration. With the iOS, they're moving at lightning speed. Perhaps they want to achieve the same on Mac OS. Steve Jobs has called Java a "ball and a chain" years ago, so this is not too surprising. Strategically, Apple doesn't care about cross-platform technologies because per definition they don't take advantage of platform innovations. See Job's Flash-on-iOS open letter. Nobody say Apple is not consistent in their strategy and vision - in fact, I've never seen such a razor sharp focus in a company that size.
pedanticfreak 16y ago
This is potentially a step backward for security. Apple had the right idea of providing Flash and Java through the System Updates mechanism. They have just historically failed to be timely with security updates. Putting security updates in the hands of users is a recipe for no security.
cpr 16y ago
If Apple's serious about being anti-Flash, this is another way, over time, to reduce the overall number of copies of Flash in the world (they say there are 50M active Mac OS X users), if everyone has to download it first. In fact, if they just drop the percentage of pre-installed Flash engines from 95% to 90% to 85% to 80%, etc., then the Flash ubiquity argument falls apart, and further hastens the decline of its influence. (Personally, I'm all for it. I just see Flash as Adobe's cynical attempt to create an alternative (and lousy) operating system that runs on all the existing systems.)

102 points by pmjordan 16y ago

I didn't think about the aspect of Flash updates. If Flash is no longer installed updated by Apple, I will have to download and install the Flash updates myself, or count on Adobe to handle updates. (Which judging from past experience with Adobe Flash player updates in Windows, might be suboptimal.) Ultimately I would like to go no flash, and probably could today. I don't play flash games, so I won't have a problem there. Both YouTube and Vimeo, the two video sites I use most, have an HTML 5 version, so I don't even need flash for that. Chances are if I uninstalled Flash today all I would miss are flash ads, and that would be a good thing, especially since getting rid of Flash closes another potential security hole.

callahad 16y ago
Chrome actually ships with its own, integrated copy of Flash. Which, coupled with Chrome's automatic updates, should keep you nicely patched.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  I'll have to try a performance comparison, but the native HTML 5 video only uses about 10-11% processor power on my MacBook, allowing me to run it on batteries longer. I doubt that even Chrome's integrated flash can provide that sort of performance.
  - seanalltogether 16y ago
    Battery usage is dependent on both cpu and gpu power draw. It's more complicated to determine what the overall difference is between html5 and flash power drain.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    That's true on my Macbook as well, but it's also a lot less stable for some reason. Flash plays perfectly fine, while HTML5 video on YouTube in Chrome will fairly frequently cause weird graphics glitches or freeze a tab. Works perfectly fine in Linux, so not sure what the deal is.
iheartmemcache 16y ago
Quite a few sites use Flash sockets instead long-poll to maintain connections. Hypem.com is the first that comes to mind. Zed Shaw's Mongrel2 also features JSsockets [1] which uses a .swf for connection persistence as well. There's quite a few apps use Flash behind the scenes, and you won't notice it until it breaks. [1] http://code.google.com/p/jssockets/ http://code.google.com/p/jssockets/
- swombat 16y ago
  I've had FlashBlock on for quite some time now, and I haven't noticed any apps mysteriously breaking. So at the moment I'd count that as pro-Flash FUD. (yes, I do use a lot of online apps)
  - mcav 16y ago
    Some flash blocking plugins automatically allow flash applets that are very small (which are often used for sockets, etc).
    - sudont 16y ago
      Correct. ClickToFlash's default (AFAIK) setting is to allow 1x1 and 0x0 flash items to load in the background. At least, that's how I think it operates. I block everything, and press command-control-f when a site doesn't work properly.
  - benologist 16y ago
    I don't think I'd call it FUD so much as a non-visible use of Flash. HTML5 and jQuery audio players are another example that often discretely relies on Flash as a fallback.
- jmreid 16y ago
  Many sites use Flash to embed fonts as well.
  - NathanKP 16y ago
meelash 16y ago
I would strongly doubt there'll be any difference in penetration in the short-term. You may not be able to think of common use cases, or any at all, off the top of the head, but over the course of a year, chances are you'll come across some interesting website or feature on the web that requires flash. And the barrier to viewing it (installing Flash yourself) is really not that high. If you want to test it without actually uninstalling flash, just install ClickToFlash (for Safari) and you'll see many sites even use flash for non-dynamic things like buttons.
DeusExMachina 16y ago
You can install ClickToFlash to get a taste of it, so when you absolutely need to see some flash content, you can just click on it. http://clicktoflash.com/ http://clicktoflash.com/ Actually I don't miss Flash at all except for one place: street view on Google Maps, which is done in Flash and I find it useful to take a look when I have to go in some place I don't know (it helps a lot being familiar with the surroundings once you are there). Apart of that, I never enable Flash on other websites.
- Yaggo 16y ago
  I would like to see clicktoflash pre-installed on Macs ;-)
  - nikster 16y ago
    Clicktoflash is the first thing I install on any new Mac - my own, or friend's. I find the internet unusable without Flash blocker. Flash uses are as follows: - Ads. Nobody needs those, and I actually dread the day Flash dies, because then these annoying ads will be HTML5 and maybe not as easy to block anymore. - Games. I know lots of people who play nothing but Facebook games all day. - Video. Not an issue anymore as most content is available in HTML5. If Apple finds an alternative solution for Flash games, they can kill Flash off completely. I don't feel like they're going there though, probably knowing that the day they try to kill Adobe will be the day Microsoft buys Adobe out.
- pietro 16y ago
  Maps for iOS has a native implementation of Google Street View. It's much better than the desktop version, so I don't even use Flash for that.

nexneo 16y ago

Apple doesn't want to spend their time on any other platform's maintenance, make sense.

yumraj 16y ago
OK. So, shouldn't Apple remove perl, php, ruby, apache, and every other 3rd party software that it currently ships with since I'm sure Apple doesn't want to spend time maintaining those either. Curious mind wants to know, why just Flash and Java?
- YooLi 16y ago
  How about because all those you list don't have user interface ties. Maybe because all those you list aren't heavily used by the majority where an outdated or exploit-prone version would matter. People who do use the examples you listed often install their own versions because the Apple versions are out of date.
  - nikster 16y ago
    Very good point there! Speaking of exploits - both Java and Flash run in the browser and are therefore susceptible to web based drive by attacks. None of the other technologies are exposed to the outside world.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- grinich 16y ago
  Apple can't fix bugs in Flash.
- tptacek 16y ago
  To the extent that Apple depends on (say) Ruby, then they own the system ruby and have a responsibility to keep it up to date. So, for instance, when someone finds an Apache flaw, Apple has to bundle a security update for it, and may even have to alter ship dates to account for it. To the extent that Apple can decide that it does not depend on, say, Flash, then it makes sense for them to not to ship it. If they ship it, they own it, they have to fix it. If they don't ship it, they don't own it, and the vendor has to fix it. Which, in Adobe's case, makes perfect sense; Adobe's security flaws should not be Apple's problem if they don't have to be.

codebaobab 16y ago

The first thing that crossed my mind was: "Apple wants to force Adobe Flash into the Mac App Store". Now, the current App Store terms of service seem to preclude the distribution of plugins like Flash. But let's pretend, just for a minute, that they didn't. Apple would see the following advantages to having the Flash plugin on the App Store: 1) No need to worry about syncing Flash updates to OS X updates. No more risk of shipping an "outdated" version of Flash like happened with 10.6.4 back in the summer. 2) There is a visible, user friendly update stream (that is separate from the OS update stream.) This should enable users to easily always be using the latest version. 3) Apple can wield the hammer (as hard or as soft as it chooses) against bugs in the plugin--that's part of the terms of service in App Store. It makes it easy to push back on Adobe when they find bugs during the review process (even if the bugs they "find" are bugs that were known from previous releases.) And, who knows? Now that Safari 5 has an official plugin mechanism, perhaps the App Store will open up for Safari plugins in the not too distant future.

smackfu 16y ago
It really does make sense to move non Apple stuff out of the system updater, and into the app store updater. Flash and Java being the two main items. OTOH, it would make even more sense to wait until the app store exists.
- pyre 16y ago
  Would Flash and/or Java even pass muster for admittance into the OS X AppStore?
  - irons 16y ago
    They would not. No plugins, no system infrastructure, not even System Preferences panes, just single-package apps.
matwood 16y ago
I was thinking the same thing although current app store rules would seem to disallow installing something like flash and Java. I really hope that Apple does end going this way and let 3rd parties manage their libraries in this manner.

frou_dh 16y ago

This is where "You need Flash to view this. Get it [here]" comes in. Non-technical users aren't going to manually install Flash if all they're presented with is a blank space. Luckily for Abobe they only need to see the former once.

smackfu 16y ago

I wish Apple would stop with these games and just do what's best for the consumer. Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today. OTOH it would make sense to move Flash to the OS X App Store when that is released, so that Adobe could manage their own updates. We'll see if that is an option, and it would be nice if Apple had waited until the App Store existed. Instead Adobe will need to have its own updater for Flash, right when Apple is coming out with a centralized update system. How dumb is that?

irons 16y ago
Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today. You may have noticed that Apple cleaned house on Wednesday. They announced the Mac app store, deprecated Java (and listed deprecated-Java as a disqualification to get into the app store), and shipped significant new hardware which offered a clean break on the software configuration, including the end of Flash as default kit. There's no provision in the app store as currently defined to carry anything except self-contained single-package application bundles, so no, you won't see Flash or any other plugins carried there in the foreseeable future.
DougBTX 16y ago
> just do what's best for the consumer Apple got caught shipping a Flash player with known security vulnerabilities, that's not good for "the consumer". They also claim that half the reported OS X crashes are due to Flash - which seem exaggerated, but if true, also bad for "the consumer".
- YooLi 16y ago
  Honestly I don't think it's an exaggeration, even if technically I think they were talking about Safari crashes. Flash has crashed my Safari more times than I can excuse as 'these things happen'.
- smackfu 16y ago
  And now Flash won't be included in the system updater, so now way more people are going to be running back-level versions. Bet that will really help with the crashing and security issues. This is exactly the reason Chrome moved to shipping with Flash included, and why Firefox now checks the flash version when it starts up. Apple is going backwards on this.

jsz0 16y ago

The platform provider should always be responsible for installation/upkeep whenever possible. In retrospect it seems a bit odd that OSX ever included Flash in the first place. Adding that extra distribution layer may give the user the illusion that Apple is responsible for keeping Flash updated. No one wants that responsibility. Not even Adobe. As far as I can tell the only way to keep Flash updated is to check Adobe's website every so often. I didn't hear a peep from Apple or Adobe about 10.1 being released. No automatic update here.

IdeaHamster 16y ago

Let me tell you a little story from the inside… So, when you build something as big and complex as an operating system, your single biggest enemy is: change. The more things change, the more you need to test and retest to be absolutely sure that those changes didn't have any unintended side-effects. This is why, in the process of reaching a GM build, the ability for groups to change components is gradually locked down. The final lock-down is GM, and this usually happens around 1 month before the first customers see the next OS. This time is needed to "prime the channel". That is: you need to press the disks, prepare the marketing material and the packaging, do all of the final validation testing, and start shipping the software to stores. In the case of SnowLeopard, that meant that development was done, and GM was declared, in the 3rd week of July. SnowLeopard shipped on Aug. 28th. Know what happened between those two dates? Flash Player v10.0.32.18 ships on July 30 with critical security fixes: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-10.html http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-10.ht... Remember all the fuss? No? Here's a reminder: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/snow-leopard-ships-with-vulnerable-flash-player/4175 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/snow-leopard-ships-with-v... In particular, people were incensed that installing SnowLeopard on top of their Leopard systems that already had an updated Flash player actually reverted to the vulnerable version. Why? Because Flash was part of the OS. It was part of the install package that gets laid down fresh, instead of being part of the user installed software that gets migrated from old to new OS. And because Adobe didn't get the Flash update to Apple before GM was declared.

DeusExMachina 16y ago
This is also what Gruber wrote at the time: http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/flash_snow_leopard http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/flash_snow_leopard
- IdeaHamster 16y ago
  Gruber has good sources ;)
  - mkramlich 16y ago

patrickaljord 16y ago

Ubuntu and just about any Gnu/Linux distribution haven't been bundling the Flash player for years, nice to see Apple doing the same.

code_duck 16y ago
Neither has Microsoft. I know people are interested in anything that has to do with Apple, but I'm still attempting to determine what makes this newsworthy.
hasenj 16y ago
Apple is not interested in advancing "Free Software", so this has nothing to do with that.

jellicle 16y ago

Look, people. This move was done because Apple totally has your best interests at heart and is absolutely not in any way any sort of anti-competitive thing, because Apple simply doesn't have any sort of Flash-competitor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduia_%28software_framework%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduia_%28software_framework%... It was done because Apple loves you and wants to protect you, like a soft warm blanket over your head, pressing down tightly.

sacrilicious 16y ago
Pardon me pointing out the difference between a plug-in and a web framework. Believe you me, this is a headache, but you have the right to your own opinion, not your own facts.
- jellicle 16y ago
  You probably ought to google "rich internet apps" to achieve a slightly greater level of understanding before commenting.
chc 16y ago
Apple's Flash competitor which it is engaging in anticompetitive practices to force on people is standard HTML, CSS and JavaScript? That's not exactly anticompetitive, given that those are not proprietary Apple technologies. Also, Apple has several more of these "Flash competitor" frameworks. There's at least SproutCore and PastryKit, and I think a few in addition to those.
brudgers 16y ago
Apple's Flash competitor is iOS, which normally requires fewer hardware resources, but doesn't run on anything other than Apple hardware. Among the advantages for Apple are better developer lock-in, better access to user data and stronger branding.

zmmmmm 16y ago

This seems to confirm an interesting and decisive change of strategy from Apple, and totally parallels the Java decision very closely. If you put these three things together: 1) Deprecate Java on Macs 2) Deprecate Flash on Macs 3) Deprecate all non-Apple-controlled apps on Macs by introducing the store If you put the three together it shows a strong and coordinated move to start reigning in free development on Macs and move it to a model where Apple totally controls the experience.

whyenot 16y ago
Adobe and Oracle are gaining control over Java and Flash, two things that previously Apple controlled themselves. The app store isn't replacing the ability to install application on your own, it's just another option to purchase and install apps in a way that may be more familiar and user friendly for those who use Apple's phones. This seems more like Apple reducing their control over the user experience.
- code_duck 16y ago
  In what ways did Apple control Sun or Adobe more than Oracle or... Adobe? What do you mean?
  - whyenot 16y ago
    Currently, Apple controls the Java implementation for OS X. In the future they will not. Currently Apple controls what version of Flash ships with OS X. In the future they will not. The OP asserts that these changes will increase Apple's control over the user experience. To me, it looks like with these changes Apple is actually giving up control over some things.
    - code_duck 16y ago
      Sorry, I think I read your earlier statement backwards. Thanks for the clarification.
stevejohnson 16y ago

pacomerh 16y ago

I really don't think it's a big deal. If people need flash they'll make sure they have it. This just throws the responsibility to the user. It's reasonable for apple to do this, but looks/sounds a little over the top.

bsergean 16y ago

Apple is the new Microsoft.

jdavid 16y ago

1st, what made macs awesome is how well they target multiple platforms. having access to apple, linux and windows user on one device was awesome. 2nd, chrome and firefox will still auto download flash, so really what this does is it makes safari users act like IE users in that they won't have all of the plugins. it seems that apple is doing this so they rapidly iterate for Mac OS (next) without vendor support. sounds like apple is getting quite before something big in the next OS.

nikster 16y ago
Apple is all about rapid iteration. With the iOS, they're moving at lightning speed. Perhaps they want to achieve the same on Mac OS. Steve Jobs has called Java a "ball and a chain" years ago, so this is not too surprising. Strategically, Apple doesn't care about cross-platform technologies because per definition they don't take advantage of platform innovations. See Job's Flash-on-iOS open letter. Nobody say Apple is not consistent in their strategy and vision - in fact, I've never seen such a razor sharp focus in a company that size.

pedanticfreak 16y ago

This is potentially a step backward for security. Apple had the right idea of providing Flash and Java through the System Updates mechanism. They have just historically failed to be timely with security updates. Putting security updates in the hands of users is a recipe for no security.

cpr 16y ago

If Apple's serious about being anti-Flash, this is another way, over time, to reduce the overall number of copies of Flash in the world (they say there are 50M active Mac OS X users), if everyone has to download it first. In fact, if they just drop the percentage of pre-installed Flash engines from 95% to 90% to 85% to 80%, etc., then the Flash ubiquity argument falls apart, and further hastens the decline of its influence. (Personally, I'm all for it. I just see Flash as Adobe's cynical attempt to create an alternative (and lousy) operating system that runs on all the existing systems.)