Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MacBook Air Doesn't Ship with Adobe Flash
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For what? I un-installed Flash on my machine and don't miss it one bit. And I use Facebook everyday.
Oh you mean for the "Games" that steal your information and send it to Russia via Zynga?
Yeah, I can see why you can't live without Flash. Jeez.
About time. I hate how they have polluted OS X with trash like Adobe Flash when I first startup a Mac.
Yes because even in the article it stats windows machines do not always come with flash pre installed. Yeah ok.
You guys have short memories...
A lot of Apple's security updates have to include updated versions of Flash due to its high rate of security flaws, such as this one:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple-Adobe-address-security-flaws-in-QuickTime-Flash/1207771080
It is possible that Flash flaws are even driving Apple's security update schedule faster than they would otherwise be releasing updates (although it is hard to imagine them going any slower).
However earlier this year Adobe stepped out of line and publicly humiliated Apple for releasing a security update that included an obsolete version of Flash Player (that included an already documented security weakness). The security community picked up on this and heaped scorn on Apple for their poor security practices and the story went mainstream:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1686373/apple-flash-player-security-update
So - Apple does Adobe a favor and bundle their Flash player with every Mac sold - and Adobe repay that by stabbing Apple in the back, when it is actually the high rate of security flaws in Flash that creates the situation where a new version needs to be released between beta test and formal release of a security update.
I am sure that at this point someone at Apple (someone highly placed perhaps?) asked why they were bundling third party software in the core OS? By bundling it Apple takes on responsibility for all updates and security. If they just step back and allow the user to install Flash for themselves then the user implicitly accepts all responsibility for keeping that software up to date and secure, as we do for all our other third party software.
Seems like an obvious reaction, and probably the right one. They are not blocking Flash, I dont think they even want to discourage it (although they might) but I do think that they don't want to be responsible for it any more...
A lot of Apple's security updates have to include updated versions of Flash due to its high rate of security flaws, such as this one:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple-Adobe-address-security-flaws-in-QuickTime-Flash/1207771080
It is possible that Flash flaws are even driving Apple's security update schedule faster than they would otherwise be releasing updates (although it is hard to imagine them going any slower).
However earlier this year Adobe stepped out of line and publicly humiliated Apple for releasing a security update that included an obsolete version of Flash Player (that included an already documented security weakness). The security community picked up on this and heaped scorn on Apple for their poor security practices and the story went mainstream:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1686373/apple-flash-player-security-update
So - Apple does Adobe a favor and bundle their Flash player with every Mac sold - and Adobe repay that by stabbing Apple in the back, when it is actually the high rate of security flaws in Flash that creates the situation where a new version needs to be released between beta test and formal release of a security update.
I am sure that at this point someone at Apple (someone highly placed perhaps?) asked why they were bundling third party software in the core OS? By bundling it Apple takes on responsibility for all updates and security. If they just step back and allow the user to install Flash for themselves then the user implicitly accepts all responsibility for keeping that software up to date and secure, as we do for all our other third party software.
Seems like an obvious reaction, and probably the right one. They are not blocking Flash, I dont think they even want to discourage it (although they might) but I do think that they don't want to be responsible for it any more...
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. When you go to YouTube and Flash is not installed it tells you to download and install the Flash plugin and gives you a link to download it.
"To be fair, Flash doesn't come standard on a lot of machines, even for Windows"
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I say, why should Adobe get the privilege a la those preinstalled, ISP wizards that bloat a typical windows OEM machine's desktop (at least here in Japan)?
Just have the user install the damn plugin if needed, the process is pretty self-explanatory anyway these days!
Just have the user install the damn plugin if needed, the process is pretty self-explanatory anyway these days!
who uses flash anyway
Ummm ever been to YouTube?
Newsflash OS X Works fine without Flash, most would argue better!
While I agree Flash sucks, Apple should still include it, just to avoid confusion. Until HTML5 (or something else) takes over were stuck with Flash...
Adobe played some PR games when the last OSX update reverted to an older (and less secure) version of Flash.
Problem solved?
LOL!
Problem solved?
LOL!
YouTube was one of the first to migrate toward H.264...
Maybe this will backfire. People will now see "missing plugin" everywhere and see how pervasive flash is and how it's needed to see content
I think flash needs to go bye-bye
Why would anyone need to rely on one particular company to view web contents?
Why would web site companies and/or developers risk some viewers not able to view their site because it is limited to ONE COMPANY, adobe. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to make it work with an OPEN standard?
Look at Youtube, it works just fine, everywhere, always!
Look at louivuitton.com all flash, can't browse. Not apple's fault, but loui vuitton's fault.
Why would anyone need to rely on one particular company to view web contents?
Why would web site companies and/or developers risk some viewers not able to view their site because it is limited to ONE COMPANY, adobe. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to make it work with an OPEN standard?
Look at Youtube, it works just fine, everywhere, always!
Look at louivuitton.com all flash, can't browse. Not apple's fault, but loui vuitton's fault.
I know, but quoting that page
"you can choose to use the HTML5 player instead of the Flash player for most videos"
and
Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)
and
Fullscreen support is partially implemented
Until they fix all 3 of these, Flash is a necessary evil, trust me I can't wait....
Maybe this will backfire. People will now see "missing plugin" everywhere and see how pervasive flash is and how it's needed to see content
Word. I'm sure they'll be amazed at how they don't get to see all of the annoying ads on web-pages anymore.
here is what I want to say.
'screw you Apple'. there are still lots of websites using flash. if you continue to ignore, you will fail. dumb ****ing apple, and steve.
even though you don't have when you will get new one, just install damn flash. you still need it a lot. I don't use safari anymore. actually, there is no safari on my mac. chrome is thumbs all the way up. nothing can beat chrome.
'screw you Apple'. there are still lots of websites using flash. if you continue to ignore, you will fail. dumb ****ing apple, and steve.
even though you don't have when you will get new one, just install damn flash. you still need it a lot. I don't use safari anymore. actually, there is no safari on my mac. chrome is thumbs all the way up. nothing can beat chrome.