Adobe: Mac OS X 10.6.4 Carries Outdated Flash Player

[Bafflefish]

This.

Adobe has the mindset that it's flash player is supposed to be on ALL operating systems because it is the standard.

How's that viewpoint though different from any other company? Microsoft wanted Windows on every computer sold, and nearly succeeded. I'm fairly certain Apple would be more than happy to have everyone own a Mac if it was possible.

Hell, Steve Jobs' vision for a bright new future is probably everyone in the world checking their iPhone for any new messages or missed calls, then going and plugging their iPod into their Mac to sync music or videos to it, then going and sitting down in front of their TV with the AppleTV going while doodling on their iPad.

 

[motodroid]

people may dislike Flash for different reasons, but it's a FACT that everyone hates steve jobs fanboys.

I must agree, and try google chrome.
google.com/chrome

 

[Bafflefish]

*lots of vulnerabilities listed*

My only question regarding the list of vulnerabilities/etc corrected in the update is, Adobe lists all fixes across all platforms, without differentiating which platforms the vulnerabilities affected.

I won't claim extensive knowledge in this area, so someone please inform me whether it's the case or not, but it seems like a lot of those vulnerabilities could primarily be focused towards the Windows Flash player, and not necessarily the OS X or Linux implementations?

 

[Amdahl]

My only question regarding the list of vulnerabilities/etc corrected in the update is, Adobe lists all fixes across all platforms, without differentiating which platforms the vulnerabilities affected.

You can assume that the vulnerabilities will apply to all i386 platforms, at least. The actual implementation of an attack would likely be specific to one platform, although in some cases the platform is the browser, rather than OS. I seem to remember somebody had demonstrated an attack that was simultaneously x86 code and Flash code, and worked through a null pointer dereference (or some other hard to exploit bug). That kind of attack would probably work on any OS that was on an x86 processor.

 

[motodroid]

Oh no... vulnerabilities. Don't go to shady websites, or sites that end in .cn or another country that tend to not like us, for most users vulnerabilities in our computers do no affect us. Flash is not dead, not even close, won't be for a long time. I do like how apple was brought back from near death with Adobe and their resource intensive programs, photoshop and such, and now that they're mainstream again, they denounce the company is bad.
talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[Amdahl]

Oh no... vulnerabilities. Don't go to shady websites, or sites that end in .cn or another country that tend to not like us, for most users vulnerabilities in our computers do no affect us.

That is not enough. There are thousands of legitimate websites that are infected with malware droppers. WSJ had one just in the past two weeks. If you are fully patched up, you are unlikely to be infected by these infected websites.

 

[SeanMcg]

"Computerworld reports on a Tweet" "Journalism" in the modern age.

Anyway, I partially agree with those who said that Computerwold is to blame for riling things up. However, if this Tweet hadn't come from Brad Arkin, but was simply a generic press release, I would agree with those who claim that this announcement had no ulterior motive. It was a very crude attempt to return the favor of Jobs' criticisms of Flash.

PR wars aside: This update wasn't ready in time to be tested as part of the normal development cycle. Based on Arn's posts here, the last dev releases that were stable appeared BEFORE the release of the Flash update. Too late.

The next inevitable update to Flash might be in the next (inevitable )OS update.

 

[bikemonkey]

It's there for those who don't want to hunt down all the latest updates.

If you want the latest update, you are probably not waiting for the OS update anyway. The Apple update keeps your newer software.

I don't know, I admit, but I figure if Adobe had released this update to Flash earlier then Apple would have included it as they would have had more time to test it. This is neither a fault of Apple or Adobe as each have their own software roadmaps.

Therefore, I don't think the inclusion of this version of Flash in 10.6.4 is for those not interested in updating. Rather, Apple are merely providing a software solution which works with their OS. You and I both know Apple quality control is very high.

 

[nutmac]

It baffles my mind that even in 10.1, Flash does not auto update. Even worse, the simple act of trying to figure out the version of Flash is needlessly complicated.

What makes it so difficult?

I can Google "flash version" to figure out what version is installed, but you can't check the version number from the flash player.

 

[motodroid]

I can Google "flash version" to figure out what version is installed, but you can't check the version number from the flash player.

or go to this site
http://www.whatismyflash.com/

 

[Consultant]

I don't know, I admit, but I figure if Adobe had released this update to Flash earlier then Apple would have included it as they would have had more time to test it. This is neither a fault of Apple or Adobe as each have their own software roadmaps.

Therefore, I don't think the inclusion of this version of Flash in 10.6.4 is for those not interested in updating. Rather, Apple are merely providing a software solution which works with their OS. You and I both know Apple quality control is very high.

Yup pretty much.

I can Google "flash version" to figure out what version is installed, but you can't check the version number from the flash player.

Safari Help Menu: "installed plug-ins"
and find your plugin.

 

[pacohaas]

So end users don't have to worry; Apple does this for other things too. I like it because it prevents me from going to 10 different sites to get the latest drivers/updates.

They should do it separately like the Printer Driver updates through Apple Software Update, no reason at all to include this in OS updates.

 

[Erwin-Br]

How do I go back to adobe flash player version 10.0.45.2 for safari? I installed the so called "latest" version and now all I get is crashes every minute just from watching a youtube video or loading a certain page with flash!

Edit: To the reply above me, good choice don't touch a thing.

I have a better solution: Use a real browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

 

[evanren]

Maybe it's better for Apple to NOT include Flash in its OS updates?

Keep crying Adobe.

Plus, any software developer would know not to include a brand new 3rd party software with a release that's tested for months. Wait, so Adobe's director of security has NO CLUE about software development?

BTW, Apple's installer is reported to not downgrade your Flash if you got newer installed, so what's the point of Adobe crying? So Apple OS X update upgrades older versions of Flash, reducing load of Adobe's server, and Adobe complains?

Good point!

 

[DesmoPilot]

I must agree, and try google chrome.
google.com/chrome

+1. Safari 5 sucks.

 

[gwangung]

I can Google "flash version" to figure out what version is installed, but you can't check the version number from the flash player.

any reason why there cant be a preference pane available in System Preferences to give version number and an update option?

 

[ARF900]

Im not updating until I get to my time machine, I got Safari 5 and hated it, so i need to be able to revert to safari 4 via time machine.

 

[MrSmith]

So what exactly with Apple including a third party plugin so you don't have to look for it and install it yourself differ from "Macs were meant to be easy to use."

This:

...Apple's Mac OS X 10.6.4...comes with an outdated version of Flash Player and reminding users to upgrade to the latest version.

I have no idea how to, or desire manually to, upgrade Flash.

 

[AidenShaw]

I love the (in)consistency here...

- Apple announces new video acceleration APIs, shortly afterwards Adobe releases latest version that doesn't use the APIs (although the latest beta builds do)
- Fans cry "Adobe is bad"

- Adobe releases new version of Flash, shortly afterwards Apple releases OS update that doesn't have the latest Flash
- Fans cry "Adobe is bad"​

Both companies made the same response to the same situation - a release contained what was tested on most systems, and didn't risk incorporating "last minute" changes in a third party component.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I have a better solution: Use a real browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

All those browsers you listed use a variation of the Mozilla plugin model. (I consider Safari to be more of a browser than Firefox)

Fail.

Only Adobe can "fix" Flash. Its not the browser, its not the OS.

I love the (in)consistency here...

- Apple announces new video acceleration APIs, shortly afterwards Adobe releases latest version that doesn't use the APIs (although the latest beta builds do)
- Fans cry "Adobe is bad"

- Adobe releases new version of Flash, shortly afterwards Apple releases OS update that doesn't have the latest Flash
- Fans cry "Adobe is bad"​

Both companies made the same response to the same situation - a release contained what was tested on most systems, and didn't risk incorporating "last minute" changes in a third party component.

Maybe you're following a false cause. Maybe the real cause is Adobe is just plain bad.

 

[AidenShaw]

Maybe you're following a false cause. Maybe the real cause is Adobe is just plain bad.

No, I think the "lost cause" is trying to convince some MacRumours readers that there's a lot of risk in adding the latest features to a significant release at the last moment.

Apple doesn't include the latest Flash, Adobe doesn't use the latest APIs - and for exactly the same reasons.

There's no conspiracy, neither company is evil. It's just risky to change things at the end of a beta test cycle.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Adobe and 64 bit talent

Adobe pulled all Linux 64 bit betas and currently has no 64 bit option for 10.1.

They've informed the community that a heavy rewrite is in the works.

You've had years to get this 64 bit done.

Literally, years.

 

[MorphingDragon]

No, I think the "lost cause" is trying to convince some MacRumours readers that there's a lot of risk in adding the latest features to a significant release at the last moment.

Apple doesn't include the latest Flash, Adobe doesn't use the latest APIs - and for exactly the same reasons.

There's no conspiracy, neither company is evil. It's just risky to change things at the end of a beta test cycle.

I think you missed the undertone.

Cocoa hasn't changed significantly since its nextstep days. Theres not a lot of risk in using the latest Cocoa revision. .Net on the other hand, well.

 

[Atkins]

Adobe is simply warning users to upgrade to the latest version of their player which fixes some security vulnerabilities. Apparently you have a problem with that. I wonder why? Adobe is simply being responsible here while you are simply being an Apple fanboy.

So you basically call bias and then write this:

Flash player does Auto Updates on Windows just fine. I suspect that Steve Jobs prevents Adobe from doing the same on OS X.

Lol. Whatever.

Name one such vulnerability, would you? You will not because you are just trolling.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/09/adobe-promises-fix-for-flash-vulnerability-by-tomorrow-reader-a/

 

[Atkins]

Apple, Microsoft and everybody else in the industry also advice their customers to update to the latest versions of their products. It's a common and good business practice, end of story.

Common, but not so common.

But maybe some of the school kids here just love to hate Adobe because they believe that Steve Jobs put them on a Holy Jihad and now try hard to find something to feed their anger with instead of using their brains for a change.

Or maybe some of the users are just having fun? Why so serious?

I have a better solution: Use a real browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

Safari is a very good browser.