or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac

post #1 of 265
Thread Starter 
Adobe has declared its 10.1 release of Flash Player a Golden Master and is now serving it as the default Flash Player download after more than six months of beta testing.

The new Universal Binary Flash 10.1 works with Firefox, Opera and Safari and fixes a variety of outstanding problems. Chrome is notably absent from Adobe's list of supported browsers on the Mac. The 10.1 release is also being offered for Windows, Linux and Solaris users, along with a beta version that works with Android 2.2.

The latest Safari 5 ships with Flash Player 10.0; Mac users wanting to upgrade to the latest version of Flash can do so at Adobe's download site.

Flash privacy failure

Among the new features of Flash 10.1 is support for browser privacy features, which prevent Flash local data and browsing activity from persisting locally if the user has turned on the private browsing feature.

However, Adobe says this feature is not supported for Opera or Safari, meaning that Flash content won't respect users' private browsing preferences.

Another feature of Flash 10.1 is new DRM content protection that limits playback of video content over analog or digital outputs. However, that feature is only enforced on Windows.

Preview support for hardware accelerated video

The new Flash Player 10.1 release doesn't yet include official support for hardware video acceleration, a new feature Apple just enabled Adobe to provide with new Mac OS X APIs.

However, Adobe is making its second preview release of "Gala" H.264 hardware decoding available for download for users who want to try it out.

The new H.264 hardware acceleration will enable new Flash videos encoded using H.264 to play more efficiently on Mac hardware, as QuickTime X already does for raw, non-Flash H.264 video for users with modern Macs (equipped with NVIDIA 9400M or better graphics) and Snow Leopard.

Mobile beta for Android

A second beta release for Android 2.2 was also released, along with the claim by Adobe that more than 250 million smartphones would be able to run Flash Player by 2012, also phrased as 53% of the 300 million smartphones it expects to be sold two years from now.

Adobe also said it plans to bring Flash Player to HP's Palm OS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, Nokia's Symbian OS, and RIM's BlackBerry OS at some point in the future. Apple has passed on supporting a version of Flash Player for its iOS devices, with the company's chief executive Steve Jobs saying recently that Adobe failed to ever demonstrate a version of Flash Player that could perform well enough to include on the iPhone.
post #2 of 265
but the real question is... will it blend?

really, if they can't manage consistency with two of the major browsers out there, what exactly are they doing? Considering what they charge for most of their development software, you'd expect all of their software to be extremely well-maintained.
post #3 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

but the real question is... will it blend?

really, if they can't manage consistency with two of the major browsers out there, what exactly are they doing? Considering what they charge for most of their development software, you'd expect all of their software to be extremely well-maintained.

One would think so, yes. Unfortunately, the Adobe that all feared when they they bought out (crushed) Macromedia has come alive. It's the Microsoft of the early 90's, without the monopoly. An aging giant Adobe is, and it had better get its shit together before long or it will fade into history.
post #4 of 265
I tried 10.1 on my Mac using my daughter's favorite Flash site, www.webkinz.com.

Unfortunately, it's not a heck of a lot better than 10.0. Running about100% CPU utilization on my Mac Mini (4 GB RAM, 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo). The old version went to around 110-120% CPU utilization on a MacBook Pro with 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo and 3 GB of RAM. The reduction in CPU usage is pretty much in line with system capabilities.

If it's still requiring 100% of a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM, why would anyone think it would ever work on an iPhone?

Another Adobe Fail.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #5 of 265
Just in time for zero day exploit. flash was removed a long time ago!!
post #6 of 265
In addition to the other negatives listed, 10.1 cannot run under 64-bit browsers -- so it cannot be installed as a plugin to 64-bit IE.

Jobs is right -- they're lazy.
post #7 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

One would think so, yes. Unfortunately, the Adobe that all feared when they they bought out (crushed) Macromedia has come alive. It's the Microsoft of the early 90's, without the monopoly. An aging giant Adobe is, and it had better get its shit together before long or it will fade into history.

In fact, the reason Adobe makes such crap software is that they *do* have a monopoly.

If the anti-trust laws in the US had any teeth at all they would never have been allowed to buy out Macromedia. A clearer case for enforcing the anti-trust law couldn't have been made (well except for Microsoft having 90% plus of the OS market at the time).
post #8 of 265
Sounds like a pretty lame release with lots for features we can't take advantage of.

What's with not supporting Chrome? That's one of Adobe's closest buddies.

I certainly won't go out of my way to pick-up this latest pile-o-crap. Jobs was right that Adobe has some lazy developers. Who releases such an incomplete product. Does anyone doubt the Steve'o now?
post #9 of 265
N E W S F L A S H !!! Adobe to buy Front Page Technology from Microsoft and make it available immediately for Windows XP (service pack 1 only) and OS 9.1 on the MAC. Upgrades to newer OS's to follow in 4-5 years.
post #10 of 265
runs just fine here.

Like most stuff on my mac.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #11 of 265
This Adobe people are CLUELESS. This release is absolutely USELESS.

Adobe recently claimed that they will a Flash Player that will run on multiple mobile devices, so that developers can write one app that works on multiple platforms. Well, this release is further proof that their claim is BASELESS.

Flash 10.1 supposedly works on some platforms, offering varying degrees of functions to each platform or program. That really sucks!!! Who makes decisions at this CLUELESS company?

How about throwing a computer with each download?

THE WHOLE THING SMELLS BAD!!!
post #12 of 265
I guess that if I had a product with a major zero-day security hole then I might hustle the new version out the door.

"Here it comes - ready or not"
post #13 of 265
I installed it too and it works great, no problems. Hulu, Foxsports.com, yahoo all working great.
post #14 of 265
Yea, and it STILL is NOT 64-bit! Get with the program, Adobe!
post #15 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

I guess that if I had a product with a major zero-day security hole then I might hustle the new version out the door.

"Here it comes - ready or not"

It wasn't rushed out. Adobe had planned to ship by end of 1H2010, which is 20 days from now. The version they shipped was release candidate 7, which was first released June 2, before this zero-day flaw was announced, and they had been generating RCs about every 14 days. It had been in public beta for many months. I think the first reviews were last October or November.
post #16 of 265
I've installed "click to flash" a while back, just to see what I would really be missing when I got my iPad. Actually, I have not missed any flash content, so I have just left that installed.

I'm not a gamer, so the only thing I am missing so far has just been ads. Stuff like Hulu doesn't work for us in Canada anyway, so I'm not missing that anyway.
post #17 of 265
"However, Adobe says this feature is not supported for Opera or Safari, meaning that Flash content won't respect users' private browsing preferences." is all that I needed to hear... I'm skeptical... it make me ask:

Does this mean it will be less likely to be secure somehow?
post #18 of 265
...also I was unable to choose which browser to install the update. It required that I install into all of my browsers (I bounce between Firefox & Safari).
post #19 of 265
If you watch YouTube often you can now run their HTML5 version completely and still get fullscreen with a Safari 5 extension.

http://www.cyberhq.nl/2010/06/08/res...l5-player.html Save your CPU cycles for something useful and help prevent Flash crashes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #20 of 265
It works about as well as a piece of dump for me. Safari 5 was working perfectly for a few days. I just installed the new Flash and it's crashing every couple minutes. In the plug-in path description in the error report it shows Adobe Flash as the culprit. I'd advise not to install it, if you use Safari 5 until they get a fix.
post #21 of 265
I downloaded it only to be told that the Gala beta I'm using is later software.

If you are using the Gala beta don't waste your time downloading this.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #22 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaine_Michael View Post

It works about as well as a piece of dump for me. Safari 5 was working perfectly for a few days. I just installed the new Flash and it's crashing every couple minutes. In the plug-in path description in the error report it shows Adobe Flash as the culprit. I'd advise not to install it, if you use Safari 5 until they get a fix.

I installed the Flash 10.1, then I installed Safari 5, went to Hulu and watched a trailer. Watched couple of news videos on cbs5.com. Happily, no crashes.
post #23 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you watch YouTube often you can now run their HTML5 version completely and still get fullscreen with a Safari 5 extension.
http://www.cyberhq.nl/2010/06/08/res...l5-player.html

I've not been able to get this extension to work yet. I can't find the button when watching .264 YouTube.
post #24 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdasmith View Post

I've not been able to get this extension to work yet. I can't find the button when watching .264 YouTube.

There is no additional button.The button that would take you to full screen in Flash only takes the video to the full width of the Safari window with HTML5. If you have this extension installed, enabled and then load the video in HTML5 that same button will now take it to full screen because it uses the webkitEnterFullScreen() WebKit API.

Of course, there could be some glitch causing it to not work on your end, but it works fine for me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 265
I don't know what Adobe did with it. But it still sucks on my MacBook.
post #26 of 265
Allow me to play devils advocate for a second here. Im no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flashs performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, Adobe couldnt even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone? and otherwise criticize Flashs Mac performance. Yeah, its been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didnt have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flashs performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. Its like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.

So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think its worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.

Whether this is related to Flashs occasional crash, I wouldnt know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally dont result in a great browsing experience.
post #27 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.

So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.

Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.

Don't play devil advocate, since if you knew your history about Adobe-Apple relationship, Apple have been very open and willing to obtain a working version that works for mac. Actually Apple approached Adobe about Flash for iPhone in the iPhone's development stages.

So comments about Adobe being lazy and Flash is awful is pretty accurate and all information you require is in Appleinsider and been discussed to death.

Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.
post #28 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.

So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.

Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.

If that was the ONLY issue then I'd see your point, but Adobe has had since Leopard to work on adding Core Animation, to make a 64-bit version, to make it less CPU intensive in general (something they did for 10.1 over 10.0) and to make it less crashy.

They only good that came out of Adobe not making a 64-bit version of Flash is Apple moved the plugin to it's own process when they made Safari 64-bit for Snow Leopard. They had no choice in the matter if they wanted Safari to be 64-bit.

Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #29 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.

That part is true. Apple did change 10.6.3 to all devs though specifically Adobe access to a framework that will offer HW acceleration.
The Video Decode Acceleration framework is a C programming interface providing low-level access to the H.264 decoding capabilities of compatible GPUs such as the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M. It is intended for use by advanced developers who specifically need hardware accelerated decode of video frames.
http://developer.apple.com/mac/libra...10/tn2267.html Here is more info from DF: http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/fl...e_acceleration

PS: Note that Flash for Windows has always been considerably better even without HW acceleration that only came with the 10.1 Beta late last year so Planet Blue's argument doesn't hold water.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #30 of 265
Great work, Adobe! I just installed 10.1 on my Windows 7 machine and even all my favorite flash games that are free run perfectly! I'll be getting a Nexus One real soon to replace my iPhone 3GS that cannot run simple things as Flash.
post #31 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.

How many HTML5 games are there? Five? How many Flash games are there? FIVE MILLION!?

Also, Flash Player 10.1 on Nexus One runs the same stuff much faster than iPhone 3GS runs HTML5. Think about that. Both have ARM CPU inside.
post #32 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

I'll be getting a Nexus One real soon to replace my iPhone 3GS that cannot run simple things as Flash.

So simple that it only took Adobe until the middle of 2010 to get it to a public beta stage and is only officially available on one Android phone, the Nexus One. And according to Adobe's own requirements the Moto Droid which only came out last November can't get it because it uses a WVGA display thereby requiring an 800MHz CPU at the very least. How could it any simpler?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #33 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Also, Flash Player 10.1 on Nexus One runs the same stuff much faster than iPhone 3GS runs HTML5. Think about that. Both have ARM CPU inside.

1) Flash isn't more efficient that native webcode. Just check out streaming video from YouTube. it's also not more efficient than a native game.

Here, I even made one just to show you how incredibly wrong you are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP7A09ty1do 2) The Nexus One runs a 1GHz CPU and the 3GS has a 600GHz CPU so you'd expect it to be faster. Yet, for graphics it was still shown to be slower than the 3GS.

http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-feat...-fps-drag-race Add Flash to the mix and you now weaken the Nexus One even more while draining the battery even faster with the weak sauce it's shown for using the web browser.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/a...-one-review/19 I suppose not everyone feels the way I do about technology. If you feel some marketing buzzwords are more important that some marketing buzzwords are important than quality engineering and good programming, or that games designed for the OS are and device are less important than a Flash game then knock yourself out. No one here is going to stop you from buying a Nexus One, but you may want to consider one of the other, better Android-based phones on the market before you commit to the failed Nexus One.

3) If you are going to comment at try to have a viable counter argument. This is pathetic.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #34 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.

So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.

Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.

Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.

The fact is that Adobe are shit at optimising code on OS X, probably because they use their own compatibility layer so that they can write code once and deploy on multiple platforms. Of course, the whole thing is architected to work best on Windows, and when used on OS X performance sucks.

There is simply no way that Flash should use so much CPU time, even without hardware accelerated video decode. See this post from a different thread.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #35 of 265
Actually runs a little bit better on the old PowerPc platform (not that many people care), when I ramp the clock speed to high performance on my trusty old Powerbook 1.67 I can actually just about watch 480i video.

I've been using 10.1 beta for a few months, the performance was better than the terrible 10.0 release. However some weird bugs manifested itself whenever I watch youtube videos where the sound starts out of sync then double tracks when the video starts. Odd

Mind you this is all worthless, I just tried Safari 5 with the html5 option in Youtube and I've been impressed with 5's performance increase even on this lowly old platform.

Better, Adobe, but not good enough....
Powerbook G4 1.67 now with a cracked screen. Somebody is hinting I need an upgrade. FAST
Reply
Powerbook G4 1.67 now with a cracked screen. Somebody is hinting I need an upgrade. FAST
Reply
post #36 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

How many HTML5 games are there? Five?

There are two:

http://html5games.net/
post #37 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

There are two:

No, there are more than two:

http://web.appstorm.net/roundups/bro...aving-the-way/
post #38 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

3) If you are going to comment at try to have a viable counter argument. This is pathetic.

You and me are not talking about the same thing. Let me recap. Very simple. Understand, please.

iPhone runs HTML5 much slower than Nexus One runs flash:

http://recombu.com/news/flash-player...ne_M11610.html

"Chaize also shows HTML5 running on an iPhone 3GS and it's not pretty."
post #39 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

No, there are more than two:

http://web.appstorm.net/roundups/bro...aving-the-way/

Is it now 10+2 = 12?
post #40 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

There are two:

http://html5games.net/

How did you find that site? The same domain name ending with .com shows hundreds, and that's just one site.

Plus, gotApple has either ignorantly overlooked or was just being sleazy about Flash game numbers by ignoring all the native app games and the fact that Adobe had to rewrite Flash, not just to be more efficient, but to even work on a touch-based phone.

Think about it, most Flash apps require the keyboard or mouse to navigate the game, you can't just pop that onto a touchscreen display and retain those controls. The first thing you have to do is touch inside the Flash window to give control to it, not the browser. Then you have to navigate the game. I still don't see how Adobe has worked that out without some intelligently mapped overlays, but I still foresee issues which with this limited tech.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac