Google to ban Adobe Flash-based display ads, go 100% HTML5

AppleInsider

Google's massive AdWords network will no longer accept new display ads made in Adobe Flash as of June 30, the search giant announced this week, as it works to phase out the much maligned Internet plugin.

Both Google's Display Network and DoubleClick Digital Marketing will be 100 percent HTML5-based once the changes take effect. Advertisers will no longer be able to upload Flash-based display ads starting June 30, while display ads in Flash will no longer run after Jan. 2, 2017.

While the changes will affect all display ads on Google's network, video ads built in Flash will not yet be affected.

To aid advertisers in the transition, Google has created a new help document explaining how to update Flash ads to HTML5 ads. HTML5 ads can be created on their own, or with help from Google tools.

The news comes only days after Adobe itself axed its Flash Professional software, renaming it Adobe Animate CC. The revamped software has a greater focus on HTML5 Canvas and WebGL.

Apple stopped pre-installing Flash on Macs years ago, citing the potential security threats involved. Last fall it even went a step further, actively blocking old versions from being installed in Safari. And of course, Flash has never worked on its iOS platform.

To protect yourself, see AppleInsider's tutorial on how to uninstall Adobe Flash from your Mac.

suddenly newton

Thank you, Steve. This is for the stragglers.

supremedesigner

Good move, Google. Off topic: Now, we're waiting for you, Hulu, to ditch that Flash player. Follow Netflix's approach. It's the very last site before I can remove Flash entirely off from my system.

radarthekat

How ahead of his time was Steve Jobs?  Yup.

brakken

In breaking news today, Alphabet mgmt for sub-section Google apologised profusely and deeply to Apple's late Steve Jobs for the bullshit it spewed about Flash for the past seven years. 

Fandroids immediately took to their Windows PCs to rail against the unfairness of life, and to reassert the pseudo-communist 'open' superiority of the world's second most malware-friendly operating system. Many also questioned Apple for allowing Flash on Macs. 

Meanwhile at AI, the dullest and least insightful article on the topic ever was posted, totally failing to provide either historical context or amusing witticisms. iSheep of the site were suitably unresponsive about such a 'last decade' topic. 

jkichline

It's about time. Took six years to hammer the nail in the coffin but at last it's over.

thrang

The pessimist in my says this means more ads for anyone using phone and tablets extensively, which could never render Flash to begin with...

cali

Whis is Giggle doing this?!!!?!?!?

For years fandroids have been telling us it's a special feature that Apple's hardware/software is too weak to handle!!!!!!!!1

bobroo

An interesting future AI article would be a history of the love/hate relationship between Apple and Adobe. Just say'n....

rob53

"While the changes will affect all display ads on Google's network, video ads built in Flash will not yet be affected." Halfway is better than nothing but all this is affecting are ads, not other content, which continues to be the most bothersome. ESPN still uses Flash on some of its sites while the use of Flash on other websites is still widespread even though their mobile sites don't use it. These sites are simply being lazy and could care less what's happening to users. Of course, Google will get all the credit for getting rid of Flash while Apple was the one that started it. 

anantksundaram

radarthekat said:

How ahead of his time was Steve Jobs?  Yup.

Agreed. 

As an aside, has Apple introduced a product yet that did not get started under his watch (no pun intended)?

bulldogs

brakken said:

In breaking news today, Alphabet mgmt for sub-section Google apologised profusely and deeply to Apple's late Steve Jobs for the bullshit it spewed about Flash for the past seven years. 

Fandroids immediately took to their Windows PCs to rail against the unfairness of life, and to reassert the pseudo-communist 'open' superiority of the world's second most malware-friendly operating system. Many also questioned Apple for allowing Flash on Macs. 

Meanwhile at AI, the dullest and least insightful article on the topic ever was posted, totally failing to provide either historical context or amusing witticisms. iSheep of the site were suitably unresponsive about such a 'last decade' topic. 

In reality, most Android fans own Macbooks (a few own Linux machines) and despise Microsoft far more than they do Apple. They view Apple's disdain for Google and Android to be strange and regrettable and would have much preferred Google and Apple join forces against Microsoft - who used to be a real threat to Google's core search/ads business, and the need to defend themselves against Microsoft was what motivated Google to acquire/release Chrome, Android and ChromeOS in the first place, to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of Internet Explorer and Windows - instead of embarking on the strange, years-long, mutually counterproductive and doomed to fail (as there was always going to be a midrange or low end market, and if Google and Android didn't fill it, Microsoft and Windows Mobile would have) war against Google and Android, and joining Microsoft in the process. Had Apple joined forces with Google in the beginning, both would have succeeded, both would have been better for it and Microsoft would be severely weakened as a result. Instead, Apple implicitly joined their old foe Microsoft in what turned out to be a losing strategy, with both hoping that Google's failure would result in Microsoft supplanting Google in the low and midrange device market, and with Microsoft's apps and services replacing Google's. Claiming that it wasn't a tag-team is untenable, as both Ballmer-era Microsoft and Apple engaged in the tactic of trying to pressure and frighten Android manufacturers into abandoning Android using infringement lawsuits. Both Apple and Microsoft knew that the result of this would be for those manufacturers to be forced to adopt Windows for their phones and tablets, as no other viable option was available. Apple - for some reason - was willing to countenance (and in an indirect but very real way encourage) Microsoft and Windows as a frenemy in the mobile space but not Android and Google, even though Apple claims that BOTH infringed on their IP. (The difference: Apple actually sued Microsoft where they never did get around to suing Google.) Result: instead of joining together and severely weakening Microsoft, Microsoft was able to retrench and successfully reinvent themselves as a multi-platform cloud software and services company who will increasingly compete with Apple down the line. And their attempts to crush Android was such a massive failure that Tim Cook went from trying to scare users away from Android over security and privacy issues in 2015 and 2016 to developing apps for Android like everybody else with a serious cloud software and services model - Apple's new direction - is going to. (Apple Music on Android was merely the first. iCloud for Android will follow, so will Maps and other more apps and services.) But Apple's cloud and services direction (and VR too) means that they now have 2 big competitors in that space: Microsoft and Google, both of whom have far more experience and talent in those areas than Apple does. Had Apple chosen to openly partner with Google instead of secretly partnering with Microsoft in an attempt to kill Android off, Microsoft would be severely diminished and Apple would have a strategic partner instead of 2 strong, well funded, technically capable competitors. (As it is, IBM is Apple's strategic partner on services and ... good luck with that.) So like Nokia, Apple cast their lot with Microsoft instead of Google and lost. The fact that they didn't lose nearly as much as Nokia did doesn't change that. That's the real story, whether Apple fans like it or not. Apple decided that they preferred that Microsoft get the low-end and midrange smartphone and tablet market instead of Google. Why? Maybe because iTunes was already on Windows; maybe because Microsoft Office was available on OS X ... who knows. We just know this: Apple chose the company with a bad CEO, an outdated product and business model and on the downswing (Microsoft) over a company with much better leadership with modern tech and a forward-looking business model. And you see the result: both Microsoft and Apple are now making apps for Android. Apple even open-sourced Swift in order to help facilitate cross-platform development of Android and iOS apps! So please stop pretending otherwise. It was Apple - not Google or "fandroids" who started this war, and it was Apple who lost it. Case in point: remember how the success of Apple Pay was going to drive people to Android? Well, now Android Pay and Apple Pay have the same usage rates despite the Android smartwatches not supporting NFC, and only a tiny percentage of Android phones supporting NFC or fingerprint sensors (and despite Android Pay launching only a few months ago and being supported by only a fraction of the banks and credit unions that support Apple Pay): http://www.luxurydaily.com/android-pay-apple-pay-reach-parity-as-mobile-pay-adoption-grows-report/ Guys, seriously. The war is over. Apple lost because they chose to team up with Microsoft against Google instead of Google against Microsoft. Time to admit it and move on.

waterrockets

rob53 said:

 Of course, Google will get all the credit for getting rid of Flash while Apple was the one that started it. 

Which one's actions are having a bigger impact?

jungmark

bulldogs said:

brakken said:

In breaking news today, Alphabet mgmt for sub-section Google apologised profusely and deeply to Apple's late Steve Jobs for the bullshit it spewed about Flash for the past seven years. 

Fandroids immediately took to their Windows PCs to rail against the unfairness of life, and to reassert the pseudo-communist 'open' superiority of the world's second most malware-friendly operating system. Many also questioned Apple for allowing Flash on Macs. 

Meanwhile at AI, the dullest and least insightful article on the topic ever was posted, totally failing to provide either historical context or amusing witticisms. iSheep of the site were suitably unresponsive about such a 'last decade' topic. 

In reality, most Android fans own Macbooks ... (blah blah) ...So like Nokia, Apple cast their lot with Microsoft instead of Google and lost. The fact that they didn't lose nearly as much as Nokia did doesn't change that. That's the real story, whether Apple fans like it or not. Apple decided that they preferred that Microsoft get the low-end and midrange smartphone and tablet market instead of Google. Why? Maybe because iTunes was already on Windows; maybe because Microsoft Office was available on OS X ... who knows. So please stop pretending otherwise. ... It was Apple - not Google or "fandroids" who started this war, and it was Apple who lost it. ...The war is over. Apple lost because they chose to team up with Microsoft against Google instead of Google against Microsoft. Time to admit it and move on.

So much trollery. Google started the war when it stole iOS. And I'm pretty sure apple "won" the war with all the $$$ it earned. Apple doesn't care about the low-end. It preferred not to compete against a stolen OS. 

You seem to forget Apple did team up with Google for Maps, YouTube app, search. 

volcan

In other news Adobe renames Flash Professional to Adobe Animate CC.

http://blogs.adobe.com/animate/welcome-adobe-animate-cc-a-new-era-for-flash-professional/

volcan

@bulldogs

There is this thing called paragraphs. You should look into it.

vvswarup

bulldogs said:

brakken said:

In breaking news today, Alphabet mgmt for sub-section Google apologised profusely and deeply to Apple's late Steve Jobs for the bullshit it spewed about Flash for the past seven years. 

Fandroids immediately took to their Windows PCs to rail against the unfairness of life, and to reassert the pseudo-communist 'open' superiority of the world's second most malware-friendly operating system. Many also questioned Apple for allowing Flash on Macs. 

Meanwhile at AI, the dullest and least insightful article on the topic ever was posted, totally failing to provide either historical context or amusing witticisms. iSheep of the site were suitably unresponsive about such a 'last decade' topic. 

In reality, most Android fans own Macbooks (a few own Linux machines) and despise Microsoft far more than they do Apple. They view Apple's disdain for Google and Android to be strange and regrettable and would have much preferred Google and Apple join forces against Microsoft - who used to be a real threat to Google's core search/ads business, and the need to defend themselves against Microsoft was what motivated Google to acquire/release Chrome, Android and ChromeOS in the first place, to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of Internet Explorer and Windows - instead of embarking on the strange, years-long, mutually counterproductive and doomed to fail (as there was always going to be a midrange or low end market, and if Google and Android didn't fill it, Microsoft and Windows Mobile would have) war against Google and Android, and joining Microsoft in the process. Had Apple joined forces with Google in the beginning, both would have succeeded, both would have been better for it and Microsoft would be severely weakened as a result. Instead, Apple implicitly joined their old foe Microsoft in what turned out to be a losing strategy, with both hoping that Google's failure would result in Microsoft supplanting Google in the low and midrange device market, and with Microsoft's apps and services replacing Google's. Claiming that it wasn't a tag-team is untenable, as both Ballmer-era Microsoft and Apple engaged in the tactic of trying to pressure and frighten Android manufacturers into abandoning Android using infringement lawsuits. Both Apple and Microsoft knew that the result of this would be for those manufacturers to be forced to adopt Windows for their phones and tablets, as no other viable option was available. Apple - for some reason - was willing to countenance (and in an indirect but very real way encourage) Microsoft and Windows as a frenemy in the mobile space but not Android and Google, even though Apple claims that BOTH infringed on their IP. (The difference: Apple actually sued Microsoft where they never did get around to suing Google.) Result: instead of joining together and severely weakening Microsoft, Microsoft was able to retrench and successfully reinvent themselves as a multi-platform cloud software and services company who will increasingly compete with Apple down the line. And their attempts to crush Android was such a massive failure that Tim Cook went from trying to scare users away from Android over security and privacy issues in 2015 and 2016 to developing apps for Android like everybody else with a serious cloud software and services model - Apple's new direction - is going to. (Apple Music on Android was merely the first. iCloud for Android will follow, so will Maps and other more apps and services.) But Apple's cloud and services direction (and VR too) means that they now have 2 big competitors in that space: Microsoft and Google, both of whom have far more experience and talent in those areas than Apple does. Had Apple chosen to openly partner with Google instead of secretly partnering with Microsoft in an attempt to kill Android off, Microsoft would be severely diminished and Apple would have a strategic partner instead of 2 strong, well funded, technically capable competitors. (As it is, IBM is Apple's strategic partner on services and ... good luck with that.) So like Nokia, Apple cast their lot with Microsoft instead of Google and lost. The fact that they didn't lose nearly as much as Nokia did doesn't change that. That's the real story, whether Apple fans like it or not. Apple decided that they preferred that Microsoft get the low-end and midrange smartphone and tablet market instead of Google. Why? Maybe because iTunes was already on Windows; maybe because Microsoft Office was available on OS X ... who knows. We just know this: Apple chose the company with a bad CEO, an outdated product and business model and on the downswing (Microsoft) over a company with much better leadership with modern tech and a forward-looking business model. And you see the result: both Microsoft and Apple are now making apps for Android. Apple even open-sourced Swift in order to help facilitate cross-platform development of Android and iOS apps! So please stop pretending otherwise. It was Apple - not Google or "fandroids" who started this war, and it was Apple who lost it. Case in point: remember how the success of Apple Pay was going to drive people to Android? Well, now Android Pay and Apple Pay have the same usage rates despite the Android smartwatches not supporting NFC, and only a tiny percentage of Android phones supporting NFC or fingerprint sensors (and despite Android Pay launching only a few months ago and being supported by only a fraction of the banks and credit unions that support Apple Pay): http://www.luxurydaily.com/android-pay-apple-pay-reach-parity-as-mobile-pay-adoption-grows-report/ Guys, seriously. The war is over. Apple lost because they chose to team up with Microsoft against Google instead of Google against Microsoft. Time to admit it and move on.

Apple was more than willing to partner up with Google. Google chose to compete against Apple by developing Android. I won't go as far to say that Android was stolen because I don't think it was. But Google chose to compete against Apple, simple as that. 

dasanman69

vvswarup said:

bulldogs said:

In reality, most Android fans own Macbooks (a few own Linux machines) and despise Microsoft far more than they do Apple. They view Apple's disdain for Google and Android to be strange and regrettable and would have much preferred Google and Apple join forces against Microsoft - who used to be a real threat to Google's core search/ads business, and the need to defend themselves against Microsoft was what motivated Google to acquire/release Chrome, Android and ChromeOS in the first place, to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of Internet Explorer and Windows - instead of embarking on the strange, years-long, mutually counterproductive and doomed to fail (as there was always going to be a midrange or low end market, and if Google and Android didn't fill it, Microsoft and Windows Mobile would have) war against Google and Android, and joining Microsoft in the process. Had Apple joined forces with Google in the beginning, both would have succeeded, both would have been better for it and Microsoft would be severely weakened as a result. Instead, Apple implicitly joined their old foe Microsoft in what turned out to be a losing strategy, with both hoping that Google's failure would result in Microsoft supplanting Google in the low and midrange device market, and with Microsoft's apps and services replacing Google's. Claiming that it wasn't a tag-team is untenable, as both Ballmer-era Microsoft and Apple engaged in the tactic of trying to pressure and frighten Android manufacturers into abandoning Android using infringement lawsuits. Both Apple and Microsoft knew that the result of this would be for those manufacturers to be forced to adopt Windows for their phones and tablets, as no other viable option was available. Apple - for some reason - was willing to countenance (and in an indirect but very real way encourage) Microsoft and Windows as a frenemy in the mobile space but not Android and Google, even though Apple claims that BOTH infringed on their IP. (The difference: Apple actually sued Microsoft where they never did get around to suing Google.) Result: instead of joining together and severely weakening Microsoft, Microsoft was able to retrench and successfully reinvent themselves as a multi-platform cloud software and services company who will increasingly compete with Apple down the line. And their attempts to crush Android was such a massive failure that Tim Cook went from trying to scare users away from Android over security and privacy issues in 2015 and 2016 to developing apps for Android like everybody else with a serious cloud software and services model - Apple's new direction - is going to. (Apple Music on Android was merely the first. iCloud for Android will follow, so will Maps and other more apps and services.) But Apple's cloud and services direction (and VR too) means that they now have 2 big competitors in that space: Microsoft and Google, both of whom have far more experience and talent in those areas than Apple does. Had Apple chosen to openly partner with Google instead of secretly partnering with Microsoft in an attempt to kill Android off, Microsoft would be severely diminished and Apple would have a strategic partner instead of 2 strong, well funded, technically capable competitors. (As it is, IBM is Apple's strategic partner on services and ... good luck with that.) So like Nokia, Apple cast their lot with Microsoft instead of Google and lost. The fact that they didn't lose nearly as much as Nokia did doesn't change that. That's the real story, whether Apple fans like it or not. Apple decided that they preferred that Microsoft get the low-end and midrange smartphone and tablet market instead of Google. Why? Maybe because iTunes was already on Windows; maybe because Microsoft Office was available on OS X ... who knows. We just know this: Apple chose the company with a bad CEO, an outdated product and business model and on the downswing (Microsoft) over a company with much better leadership with modern tech and a forward-looking business model. And you see the result: both Microsoft and Apple are now making apps for Android. Apple even open-sourced Swift in order to help facilitate cross-platform development of Android and iOS apps! So please stop pretending otherwise. It was Apple - not Google or "fandroids" who started this war, and it was Apple who lost it. Case in point: remember how the success of Apple Pay was going to drive people to Android? Well, now Android Pay and Apple Pay have the same usage rates despite the Android smartwatches not supporting NFC, and only a tiny percentage of Android phones supporting NFC or fingerprint sensors (and despite Android Pay launching only a few months ago and being supported by only a fraction of the banks and credit unions that support Apple Pay): http://www.luxurydaily.com/android-pay-apple-pay-reach-parity-as-mobile-pay-adoption-grows-report/ Guys, seriously. The war is over. Apple lost because they chose to team up with Microsoft against Google instead of Google against Microsoft. Time to admit it and move on.

Apple was more than willing to partner up with Google. Google chose to compete against Apple by developing Android. I won't go as far to say that Android was stolen because I don't think it was. But Google chose to compete against Apple, simple as that. 

And what would've happened if Apple decided to compete against its partner Google? 

vagrant

cali said:

Whis is Giggle doing this?!!!?!?!?

For years fandroids have been telling us it's a special feature that Apple's hardware/software is too weak to handle!!!!!!!!1

I work at Google.

Wow.  Just wow.  I had heard about the Reality Distortion Field, but I never really believed it until now.  Do you guys ever read the rest of the Internet, or do you just stay on this site and jerk each other off?

1) Google hates Flash and has been working to destroy it for at least as long as Apple has, if not longer.  Google doesn't own the entire eco-system, like Apple does, and can't make such just universal edicts as Apple can, or as quickly.  

2) The reason Jobs cut Flash was not because Flash is ugly and has security holes.  Jobs cut Flash because Adobe, which got it's start from Apple, was only focusing on the Windows version of Flash and the other versions of Flash were crap.

3) This is not the first action Google has taken against Flash.  The iSheep are acting like Google just woke up this morning and suddenly saw the light.  Google has been hacking away at Flash for as long as Apple has.  Flash makes it much harder to index the contents of the Internet and Google has forever been pushing HTML5 over Flash.  Google is just not willing to suddenly take the decision making away from its users.  Apple is.  And there are pros and cons to both approaches.

4) Google publicly bought the Android company and set out to get into the mobile phone business long before Apple announced the iPhone and long before Eric Schmidt was on the Apple board.  Apple knew that Google was working on a phone long before Google knew that Apple was working on one.  The first Android phone was announced shortly after the first iPhone.  Saying that Android copied Apple because it was released a few months later is as ridiculous as saying that Apple copied the LG Prada because it was released the year before.

There's nothing in the iPhone that hadn't already been done before on some other phone.  The brilliant thing that Jobs did was line up all the parts manufacturers and make the phone that people had been asking for, rather than taking the safe route like the moron MBAs at mobile hardware companies.  I bought the first iPhone and I loved it.  Not because, "OMG I never imagined a phone could be like this!" but because, "Finally someone manufactured the phone we have all been asking for!"

5) No one ever said that Apple hardware/software was too weak to handle Flash.  The Flash player for OX S and IOS just sucks because it was poorly written by Adobe.  More than half of the engineers at Google use Apple product and love them.

6) The only people who like Flash are the people who write apps in it.

Wow.  I mean wow.  You people really need to get out to the rest of the Internet more often and learn something.

vagrant

vvswarup said:

Apple was more than willing to partner up with Google. Google chose to compete against Apple by developing Android. I won't go as far to say that Android was stolen because I don't think it was. But Google chose to compete against Apple, simple as that. 

Apple knew that Google was working on a phone long before Google knew that Apple was working on one.  Who chose to compete with whom?

mcfrazieriv

radarthekat said:

How ahead of his time was Steve Jobs?  Yup.

Now channel that power by looking into the future and realize Tim Cook is actually bad for Apple.