Apple: Not preinstalling Flash on Macs ensures users have latest version

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    Regarding the posts about Flash and Security... Have you ever been hacked by Rogue Flash apps? How many people do you know that have been hacked by Flash apps? I never have. I don't know anyone that has. And I repair computers all the time.



    This claim sounds hardly possible. Outdated (unpatched) versions of Flash, PDF Reader, Java, etc. are a treasure trove of exploits for malware authors. In fact, last year McAfee claimed that Adobe exploits would surpass Office exploits:



    Quote:

    In 2009, McAfee Labs saw an increase in attacks targeting client software. Due to the growing popularity of Adobe applications, McAfee Labs expects that cybercriminals will continue to target Adobe products, primarily Acrobat Reader and Flash, two of the most widely deployed applications in the world. McAfee Labs expects Adobe product exploitation will likely surpass that of Microsoft Office applications in 2010.



    http://newsroom.mcafee.com/article_d...rticle_id=3607
  • Reply 62 of 135
    applappl Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rnb2 View Post


    Given the security issue that Flash has become, I don't find it hard to believe that this is a very pragmatic step from Apple. Why risk shipping a 1-2 revs (or more) old version on hardware, risking a Flash security exploit for a new user, rather than have the user get the latest, most-secure version from Adobe via the very simple download procedure the first time they encounter Flash content that doesn't play?



    .



    By this logic, Apple should ban Flash from the Mac.



    Why risk users having 1-2 revs (or more) old version on hardware, risking a Flash security exploit for hundreds of millions of existing users?



    After all, any preinstalled rev would be updated (or not) exactly the same as the version that a user might install. Is this security risk a pragmatic step from Apple? Given your logic, do you think Apple should ban Flash from Macs?
  • Reply 63 of 135
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    I honestly have no sympathy for Flash and Java. Bill Gates' great insight, the one that made him the richest man in the world, was that he could insert himself between hardware vendors and developers and thereby make them irrelevant and himself the powerful one. What these companies are trying to do with Java and Flash is pull a Bill Gates on the OS vendors, they are trying to be the next Microsoft, so don't be so ready to defend them. It's like Inception, layer upon layer upon layer. And people wonder why things get slower
  • Reply 64 of 135
    applappl Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post


    I hear that Macs will be shipped with a blank hard drive and a coupon for the latest version of Mac OS X that can be picked up at any local Apple store (while supplies last).



    To paraphrase another poster, "Given the security issue that [outdated third party software] has become, I don't find it hard to believe that this is a very pragmatic step from Apple. "



    It also ensures that all users have the latest and greatest version of positively everything, rather than merely having the latest version of Flash.
  • Reply 65 of 135
    Why the complaining? Wouldn't Adobe prefer that users download Flash directly from their site? I don't remember any Windows computer I've owned coming with Flash either - nor most browsers, when I switched to Firefox on Windows XP I remember it needing to download flash again. No biggie.
  • Reply 66 of 135
    applappl Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    3) Why not come at this simple issue objectively? Would that be so hard?



    It is not a matter of difficulty. There are other considerations. :LOL:
  • Reply 67 of 135
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post


    That's not what I meant. When Steve said that he'd make FaceTime an open standard, I thought they would publicly make the entire source code that Apple had compiled so far, available on the Web on the following day.



    So you are upset that Apple didn't do something that they didn't promise to do and isn't typically what they do anyway? Open Standard <> Open Source.



    Quote:

    That's what I meant by "open". I wasn't expecting a ratified standard available the following day of Steve's keynote. Sorry for any misunderstanding.



    That's not misunderstanding...that's projecting a completely different action vs what Steve said.



    He's not pony boy and Apple isn't Sun. There's a reason that Sun is now owned by Oracle...
  • Reply 68 of 135
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s now been about 6 months. That should be enough time to get it all in order.



    I assumed the purpose of making it an open standard was to finally have a video chat standard that could potentially be universal among all computing devices. I can?t imagine they reneged after the event so what could be holding it up?



    edit: I can?t find a mention of FaceTime being eventually opened up. Maybe they changed their mind after seeing it was a reason people wanted the iPhone.



    I haven't heard of FaceTime becoming a primary driver for iPhone 4 purchases. I too can't find any mention of it becoming an open standard on Apple's site. Articles dating to June are the last I find of it.



    It's good they finally ported it to Macs, the built-in camera didn't seem to have much of a use before.
  • Reply 69 of 135
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I haven't heard of FaceTime becoming a primary driver for iPhone 4 purchases.



    Maybe not yet, but Apple seems to be driving hard on this one. They must see something in it and they're trying to get all of their ducks in a row.
  • Reply 70 of 135
    "For its part, Adobe fired back and said that any crashes of Flash in Mac OS X are not related to its software, but are instead the fault of Apple's operating system."



    That is such a load of crap. I have a relative who works at Adobe on desktop Flash player. This relative doesn't have a very high opinion of Flash player's stability on OS X. The recommendation I got was that you run nothing else on that browser, or at least nothing else that you care about keeping, if you plan on playing any Flash content on OS X.
  • Reply 71 of 135
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Still curious if Safari on MBA will show broken Flash not installed icon, allow a prompt to install the plugin or does it just ignore the content and show white space like iPad.
  • Reply 72 of 135
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I haven't heard of FaceTime becoming a primary driver for iPhone 4 purchases. I too can't find any mention of it becoming an open standard on Apple's site. Articles dating to June are the last I find of it.



    It's good they finally ported it to Macs, the built-in camera didn't seem to have much of a use before.



    I don’t know if that is the primary driver, but anecdotally it seems to me that many toot this feature to me. I am actually quite sick of having people call me to test this feature or use it when a voice conversation is sufficient. But I’m all about efficiency so I get annoyed when people call when an IM would work better.



    Also, if you look at Apple’s site for the iPhone the first feature listed in every area appears to be FaceTime related. Even on the HW design page they mention FaceTime 3 times in relation to the camera, mic/speaker, and processor.
  • Reply 73 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    AGREED! If that is their logic then why install any software? You have to "update" just about everything after a fresh install of Snow Leopard....this is just really lame Apple....



    No, your failure to comprehend is lame. This is about giving users the choice of installing Flash, and ensuring that if they do they have the latest version. Apple issuing the buggier old release the other month was a PR disaster.



    Besides, Flash is a steaming pile, any action which reduces it's prevalence is a good thing.
  • Reply 74 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    I honestly have no sympathy for Flash and Java. Bill Gates' great insight, the one that made him the richest man in the world, was that he could insert himself between hardware vendors and developers and thereby make them irrelevant and himself the powerful one. What these companies are trying to do with Java and Flash is pull a Bill Gates on the OS vendors, they are trying to be the next Microsoft, so don't be so ready to defend them. It's like Inception, layer upon layer upon layer. And people wonder why things get slower



    Something that solipsism jokingly mentioned earler about Oracle's "replacement" for Java brought up a serious thought of mine: What can Java do that HTML5 can't? Couldn't the National Weather Service use HTML5, instead of Java, to enable radar animations? I can't think of any other top-tier legitimate sites that use Java on a mass scale; Java's a pretty pathetic plugin, when you think about it. Right now, Java and Flash are needed to play some media, but in time, perhaps that could be largely, if not entirely, eliminated with HTML5 and/or browser sniffing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Drow_Swordsman View Post


    I don't remember any Windows computer I've owned coming with Flash either - nor most browsers, when I switched to Firefox on Windows XP I remember it needing to download flash again. No biggie.



    Internet Explorer needs a different version of Flash than the Firefox/Chrome version, to account for ActiveX. That said, I recommend installing Chrome instead of Firefox. Chrome now includes built-in Flash and PDF viewing, with no additional downloads required. I'd recommend the browser for reasons other than Flash and PDF integration, but that's another story....



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post


    "For its part, Adobe fired back and said that any crashes of Flash in Mac OS X are not related to its software, but are instead the fault of Apple's operating system."



    That is such a load of crap. I have a relative who works at Adobe on desktop Flash player. This relative doesn't have a very high opinion of Flash player's stability on OS X. The recommendation I got was that you run nothing else on that browser, or at least nothing else that you care about keeping, if you plan on playing any Flash content on OS X.



    Or just install ClickToFlash, which is what I did with my mom's computer about a month ago. OK, so I installed it mainly to preserve CPU and RAM from being used on Flash ads, but there have been far fewer Safari crashes since...
  • Reply 75 of 135
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don?t know if that is the primary driver, but anecdotally it seems to me that many toot this feature to me. I am actually quite sick of having people call me to test this feature or use it when a voice conversation is sufficient. But I?m all about efficiency so I get annoyed when people call when an IM would work better.



    I hate getting voice calls when email does better. I can see FT being useful, but I haven't needed it just yet. I think it really needs to spread beyond just the Apple ecosystem to be useful. But putting it on the Macs is an important step.
  • Reply 76 of 135
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by appl View Post


    Hrrrmmmmmm..........you can buy a Mac with Microsoft Office preinstalled. If your reasoning is correct, will Apple continue to do such a foolish thing?



    "I went into the Apple Store, and they recommended all sorts of stuff that I bought directly from the Apple Store. Everything on my Mac is from Apple. Everything.



    I even bought all sorts of add-ons and accesories, spending thousands of dollars!



    And you won't support what you sold me?!"









    C'mon. If your reasoning was accurate, then I don't think that any third-party anything would be sold on/with a Mac. But that happens every moment of every day.



    The difference is they are not paying extra or having their computer pre-configured to have a flash plug-in. The act of them selecting to purchase and pre-install Office I believe cements it in their brain that Apple is not responsible for it. Of course I will concede that

    there are still probably some people who want apple to troubleshoot their MS Office issues, but obviously that isn't going to happen. For the most part though, I think most people know to contact MS for their office support.



    Flash on the other hand is free for anyone who chooses to use it, and is not a pre-install option. Some users think it is part of the Core OS since up til now it has come on the computer. Or at the very least when they have issues with it, it may not be clear to them that it is an Adobe issue as opposed to Apple.



    I think this move just further clarifies who is responsible for what. With the transition to HTML5, most users will never even miss flash, and the few who do can easily go get it for free.
  • Reply 77 of 135
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,164member
    The nerdocracy is having another cow. How predictable.



    1. With Flash pre-installed most users would never bother or even think to update it. There are a really big number of people (and I know a bunch personally) who never upgrade their machine's software. They use what came out of the box and that's it, forever, until they buy a new box. So these people would be WAY behind on Flash updates. This is how normal users act.



    2. If Flash is important to some people, they will download it and install it when they get that "plugin missing" icon. But that may be it too. They'll never update again. This is how normal users act.
  • Reply 78 of 135
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by edwardryu View Post


    it's not that you will have to go, download latest version on java, adobe sites. it's a plan that Apple will block to use them on mac near the future. of course, they will create something alternative. but what's the point? Apple recently has done very arrogant way to change market. for consumers, it's fine. but for professional IT, it can't be acceptable. I don't like something that Apple just wants to block them because performance issue? so that's why gaming on mac is so sloppy, lagging? flash, Java need all internet browsers for 99%. so Apple does that for 1%? they make so many restrictions. I become to hate it. if they open mac os x license, then they will lose the entire market. windows will win again. this is kind of healing, satisfaction way what Apple does todays. something is wrong.



    I don't know recently I am not interested in any mac apple event. I don't even watch damn quicktime special event anymore. it's was a good until 2008. I have three macs. now I think about selling all.



    It sounds like you should. You have alot of frustration and this would likely eliminate it. And, Macs have great resale value, so you should get alot for them.
  • Reply 79 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) So are the same people that complained that Apple shipped Snow Leopard discs with a slightly outdated version of Adobe Flash the ones that are complaining about having to install Adobe Flash manually, like they would have had to do anyway to get the ?safest? version?



    2) If Apple should be forced to include Adobe Flash, then Adobe should be forced to include ClickToFlash.









    1) QUickTime is an Apple product that they take responsibility for supporting.



    2) QuickTime is part of Mac OS X. You can?t remove it. If you are only referring to the player, then you are really saying that Apple?s included video playback app that is part of Mac OS X shouldn?t be included if a 3rd-party plug-in isn?t included. Doesn?t make much sense.



    Not to mention when you set up a new Mac out of the Box they always recommend you run the Apple Software Updater, which will automatically find all the needed updates for QuickTime....



    What else ya got?
  • Reply 80 of 135
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member
    This most certainly is not about security.



    If it was about security, the solution would be obvious. The first time Safari launches as a new install or upgrade, it would load in a web page which would check the version of Flash installed. If it was installed, but lower than the most recent version it would alert you to this. Even I could write the code for this.



    Furthermore, Apple could include Flash in the Software Update making sure users are notified when new versions of Flash are released.



    Instead, Apple is insuring that users get the most recent version of Flash when they first install by having them manually do so, and then not putting anything in place to make sure they update Flash when they should.



    Apple may justifiably hate Flash. I hate it too, but this move doesn't help anyone who would choose to have Flash on their computer, and creates confusion along with a false sense of security.
Sign In or Register to comment.