Want Flash Player On a MacBook Air? Download It Yourself 353
AmiMoJo writes "MacBook Airs are no longer shipping with Flash. Apple spokesperson Bill Evans said: 'We're happy to continue to support Flash on the Mac, and the best way for users to always have the most up to date and secure version is to download it directly from Adobe.'"
Lies. (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with the latest version -- Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update when the machine is first connected to the internet.
No, you're not happy to support it, considering that your company has some sort of vendetta against Flash.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Informative)
The Adobe Auto-Updater is not included.
Apple only updated the Flash Plugin via Safari updates.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say in all my years in professional development, I have only met one legitimate Mac fan boy and this was in the past three months. Maybe they're more prevalent on messageboards or hang out in the Apple store, but the stereotype (in my experience) is far different than the normal mac user.
The funny thing about this guy ... we were all talking about the iPhone 4 fiasco and the people around started to pile it on. So he turns to me with a beseeching look because I was the only other mac user in the group. I was like, "yeah, these guys are right. Apple has made some boneheaded moves." and he was crushed. He just couldn't understand how another mac user could abandon him. I tried to tell him that I prefer unix and that the mac is a marriage of convenience for me since I have yet to find a linux distro that scratches an itch for me, but he didn't really pay attention to my arguments.
Re:Lies. (Score:4, Informative)
If it were not for OS X, I would not use a Mac. All the style and design is nice, but if I were on MacOS 7 or MacOS 8, all the shiny in the world wouldn't help. Or maybe I'd use A/UX. I don't know. OS X gives me all the parts of UNIX I need, all the parts of NeXT I want, and the ability to do "normal user stuff" as well, without having to go out of my way.
I, too, have never met a Mac fanboy stereotype either, just a lot of Unix admins who don't want to have to work when they're not at work.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Funny)
How could they turn it on?
iSenseOfHumor was rejected by the app store.
Re:Lies. (Score:4, Insightful)
My Macbook Pro does get warmer when Flash is running.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 is coming
The end of the universe is also coming... eventually. But doesn't mean I'm going to start preparing for it just yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I would expect Steve to take away peoples ability to "root" on a Mac soon. You know he wouldn't want them having control over their own computer that they bought. Plus, Darth Steve always knows whats best ;)
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash for the Mac is so terrible that an Adobe evangelist actually recommended using a Flash blocker in response to people's complaints about its instability. I'm not sure if Slashdotters criticizing Apple for antagonizing Adobe are aware of how slow and buggy the non-Windows version of the plugin is. Apple is eager to replace its functionality with open web standards. Adobe is so deluded that it accused Apple of being closed and of Flash being open simply because it's a commonly-installed plugin.
Here's a John Gruber article [daringfireball.net] explaining the situation between Apple and Flash better.
Re: (Score:3)
rm -rf /Applications/iTunes.app/
There. Fixed that for you. Enjoy your Zune.
Personally, I don't get all the iTunes hate. There's a lot I don't like about Apple, but iTunes is one of the few not-completely-shite MP3 players out there because it can do handy little things like remember where you are in audiobooks, something the open source players have yet to catch onto despite almost a decade of iTunes/iPod dominance...
Re:Lies. (Score:4, Interesting)
The iTunes hate comes from the fact that VLC, a leaner install of Winamp, FOObar2000, Mediamonkey, and countless other random applications on Softpedia don't have 101MByte installers, don't add half a dozen services to my startup. Quicktime (which has had plenty of security vulnerabilities over the last few years) and Bonjour (which "simplifies" networking at the expense of adding another network attack surface) are both non-optional installs. Syncing an iOS device requires a bunch of guesswork and voodoo as to whether iTunes will ACTUALLY do what you want it to do, or delete all your files. There is still no legit way to play purchased movie or TV episode besides iTunes/Quicktime, and playing them back takes triple the CPU time for me than an XviD in GOMplayer.
All of that ignores the fact that I personally (and thousands of other people) have had our accounts hacked, (and yes, I was using a strong password) since that's a store issue, not a code issue.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux?
It doesn't come with flash either.
You have to download it directly.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Funny)
So I guess this is pure win for choice and openness, then! After all, they've adopted the same stance as Linux, and offered the user a choice of whether or not to install a horrible proprietary tool that really is a piece of garbage.
I predict that open source advocates will cheer loudly for this development!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's wrong with the mods, today??
How is this 'insightful', when I have been installing - and millions, if not billions along with me -, and upgrading, Flash automagically with my, with our, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade?
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how this is not "downloading the latest package yourself and installing it yourself?"
And is downloading an installer from a web site really considered "magical" by Linux users?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
whooo never used a modern linux, have you? It's 'automagical' (god, I hate that word) because the distro pulls a version of flash into the repositories of said distro and then users _don't_ have to go to a website, but just install flash using the tools with which they install all other software - a package manager. It's explicitly NOT the latest version from the website of the developer. No installer made by the developer has to be run manually.
Also, with some distro's, you can now just tick a box during i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so it was just a typo? You and I both know that's b.s. I just find the use of the word "magical" to be kind of funny, especially when used to describe a Linux way of doing something, in a thread about Apple. If Steve Jobs had described the App Store as "magical," we'd never hear the end of it. Do you really want to start calling apt-get "magical"?
Re: (Score:2)
"Downloading an rpm or a deb package from a repository is - wait for it - "downloading an installer" from a "website""
Nah, it's downloading a package from a central repo, it's not going to the individual site, hunting around for what you want and tehn trying to install it. It's going to work with your system and you use the OS tools to achieve it.
I'm not saying it's superior, I don't give a crap one way or another about how people install flash. I just felt the need to stick my oar in there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the "installer" is already present on your system, you are simply downloading data for the installer to process.
Using package management is hugely superior to the idea of manually downloading and executing a binary...
You have the convenience (one command or a couple of clicks, no need to keep clicking next etc).
If you use your distro repositories (which for most distros carry pretty much everything you want) there is far less risk of you getting a bad download, try googling for openoffice and see how ma
Re: (Score:2)
Can I add that Windows 7 doesn't come with flash either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux? It doesn't come with flash either. You have to download it directly.
Because Apple's philosophy is to take the burden off the user. Here, they're increasing the burden on the user. That's what makes this noteworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you mean is "one rule for Linux, another rule for everyone else"
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are taken the burden off. This way, you have
1) less security holes on the default install,
2) no need to install flashblock
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you're aware of the Flash experience on the Mac. Flash blockers on the Mac are very common because of how slow and buggy the non-Windows version of the Flash plugin is. When Safari was released to support external process plugins, it was mentioned that the #1 cause of crashes in OS X according to their crash reporter was plugins. They didn't mention it by name, but everyone knew they were talking about Flash. It's notorious for being a piece of shit.
Adobe has long been slow to update their core Mac applications, first for OS X and then for Cocoa. Only after Apple deprecated Carbon and cancelled the 64-bit version of it did Adobe finally update Photoshop to use Cocoa, almost a decade after OS X was first released. When a Snow Leopard update shipped with an older version of Flash than what was available because a newer version came out during their update cycle, people shit on Apple. Apple was doing Adobe a favor by shipping Flash with every Mac, but now that they're trying to push open standards like HTML5, and security issues have become a problem in Flash, why should they when a user who wants Flash can get the latest version directly from Adobe like they already do on Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu has an excuse; it has a policy of not including non-free software by default. Since MacOS itself is non-free, that excuse wouldn't work for Apple. :P
Re: (Score:2)
So ubuntu's commitment to openness is what allows them to sacrifice user convenience without criticism?
Apple's clearly stated that their belief is in open standards for the web, shouldn't you be applauding them "sacrificing user convenience" for the sake of open ideals as well? One need not be completely open source to believe in the merits of open and standards-based interfaces.
Ubuntu: It's in the repos (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, when Ubuntu does it, it's a victory for openness and user choice.
Sort of like when android gets completely locked down by a carrier, you end up "rooting" the device to install custom software and enjoy the benefits of your completely free and open software ecosystem, but when apple does it, you have to throw off the chains of tyranny by jailbreaking your locked down piece of crap that nobody would ever want to buy anyway, if it weren't for the power of apple's marketing team and the weak-mindedness of sheeple.
Re:Lies. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't like either case. In the locked down Android case, my annoyance would go for the carrier though, and I'd avoid dealing with that carrier if at all possible. Fortunately here I can (and do) buy unlocked phones. I haven't ever bought a phone from the carrier for this reason.
In the Apple case I don't get to do such a thing, because it's always locked down, no matter who I buy from.
Astroturfing on Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had a suspicion for a while now that Slashdot is being astroturfed by people who are either directly involved with Google or have a vested interested in its platforms like Android. Slashdot used to be friendly to Apple, critical of some things but congratulatory toward their products and success. Since Android has come out, every Apple article now is filled with Apple-bashers, people who really seem to be working unusually hard to convince everyone that Apple is evil, not worth your time, and only used by sheep. Often, they reference Steve Jobs by name, as if he can hear them or something.
I'll get accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, and I don't dismiss the fact that there have always been Apple-haters posting on Slashdot regardless of Google, but watching the tone of the comments shift so radically has been unusual, especially when the tone in articles that are critical of Google are the exact opposite--a ton of defenders justifying Google's every move, even when they're caught archiving emails and passwords from WiFi networks or when it turns out Android isn't open at all because it's controlled by the carriers. People who bash Google get modded down or drowned out by apologists.
Apple can't even introduce a Mac App Store without it some slippery slope argument claiming that the Mac will become a closed platform, despite Apple specifically mentioning that it won't be the only source of software. Linux distros have quality-tested, centralized repositories of software. Microsoft is introducing an app store in Windows 8 according to that leaked presentation. But when Apple does it, it's evil.
There's something suspicious about the sudden antagonism toward Apple. Like I said, there's always been a level of criticism over things like prices or hardware specs, but it's never risen to the degree it's at now where even things like not pre-installing Flash is some crime, even though Windows and Linux don't ship with Flash either. You have to install it yourself, whether it's from Adobe's site or using apt-get. There's a lot of misdirection going on. Look at the recent Java article whose headline and summary implied Apple was deprecating Java itself and not simply deprecating their pre-installed JVM. Again, Windows and Linux distros don't ship with Java pre-installed like that either. Apple was shipping these things back when the Mac was still clawing it's way back out of obscurity, and they couldn't count on companies like Sun to bother with their platform.
I believe Slashdot is getting astroturfed hard. The constant argument that only rubes use Macs is an attempt to rally "independent-minded" Linux users against Apple and keep them away from products like the iPhone, because some of these trolls have--I believe--a vested interest in Android. So many of the posts are just too suspicious. If Apple had been caught archiving people's emails and passwords, or if Steve Jobs had come out and said that the only people who care about privacy are people who have something to hide (as Google CEO Eric Schmidt did), the comments to the stories would have exploded in their level of sheer Apple hatred, yet those Google stories had defenders out in full force protecting the company. Something fishy is going on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno what you've been smoking, but an increase anti-apple opinion on Slashdot is absolutely consistent with the generally individualist, "pro freedom" bent the people here have always had. People here generally gave apple some credit in the past for at least being a technically excellent and otherwise inoffensive alternative to MS domination, but its recent moves are scary for anybody that cares about an open computing culture. [We all knew Jobs was an insane control-freak but previously that had only
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Astroturfing? maybe. But I think the explanation is much more simple.
As someone who enjoys Apple products (both hardware and software), but has used, and at times appreciated, Windows, Linux and other OSs, I'd have to say that recent decisions and moves by Apple are becoming more and more difficult to justify or support. Unless of course, one were to have some vested interest in it, such as to work for Apple or one of its close partners. Otherwise, as a user, I'd say there's a lot of slashdot users who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I considered the possibility of astroturfing too, but I think what's going on here is just old-fashioned human nature and prejudice. The Apple haters accuse people who use Apple products of being trendy fashion-conscious sheeple and religious zealots, but it's actually the haters who are the irrational nutters. Apple is the (surprising) intersection of technology and the liberal arts, and that is deeply offending to insecure geeks, to whom technology needs to be complicated, obtuse, highly technical and imp
Re: (Score:2)
how is that different from downloading it? It is still not included by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe just released a HTML5 player as well. Surely, this means Flash's future will no longer be based on ActionScript but HTML5. Consider it the new platform and with a nice framework, it might just be a win for Adobe.
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Informative)
No, Flash does not auto-update on a Mac. Never has. I keep having to remember to install an updated version every couple of months. Firefox is frequently warning me about it.
It's not because Apple don't allow it, or didn't ship it, or any of that nonsense. It's because Adobe couldn't be bothered to write one or use an existing one.
There IS an auto-updated for Flash. On Windows. And it only updates the ActiveX control used by Internet Explorer, and not the NPAPI plug-in used by all other web browsers. It also doesn't seem to work - I have plenty of machines around here with out-of-date Flash ActiveX controls.
Oddly, they did bother providing an apt repository for Ubuntu, so at least you can get automatic updates on that platform...
Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Flash for the Mac does not have an auto update mechanism. Many people rely on Apple to supply Flash updates by way of OS updates. It's been that way for years. The latest spate of security issues with Flash has changed the landscape a bit.
When Apple qualified a version of Flash to ship with an OS update, but that version is a revision behind what Adobe has publicly posted, Apple is given shit for not having the latest update in their distribution. When Apple decides to let Adobe do the legwork in getting the newest version into peoples' hands, Apple is given more shit.
I don't see this being much different from the position on Java: third-party crap that they don't want to be responsible for anymore.
If Adobe wants to have Flash be up to date on the Mac, they can do it themselves.
As an aside, but as a still peripherally-related statement, about the only third party software I'm in favor of Apple supplying themselves is printer drivers. That stuff is constantly changing, and though I rarely print, I think that it's more important to support those vendors and get the latest print software out there than to get the newest versions of slow, antiquated runtimes onto machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's worth noting that Apple is pulling 3rd party applications from their default OS install right before launching an app store for 3rd party software that will have an easy installation and update mechanisms.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a flash developer, and from what I remember, the Mac version of flash doesn't auto update. But maybe I'm wrong.
That said, others need to start doing this if we're going to migrate to HTML 5. Flash 9+ has something like 99% penitration. It's just too damn easy to develop with flash. It's a POS, but you know your products will get to your end users.
Ladies and Gentlemen, (Score:5, Funny)
in this corner, our old overlord, Adobe Systems Incorporated, purveyor of buggy, virusy, CPU-hoggy Flash.
And in this corner, your new overlord, Steve Jobs, who with the One Token Ring wants to rule them all.
Which overlord to welcome ... choices, choices.
Re: (Score:2)
safari's flash plugin does not come installed by default. So in this sense, they are right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with the latest version -- Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update when the machine is first connected to the internet.
Are you sure about that?
I bet one of the first things owners of new Macs do is setup networking and immediately get on the Internet and browse around.
That scenario leaves users vulnerable to Flash exploits if the version of Flash that shipped with the OS was out-of-date (which is likely). Apple could add special code that doesn't allow Flash applets to run until Flash checks for updates, but why should that burden be placed on Apple?
In addition, given all the recent Flash exploits, I think Apple is making t
Re: (Score:3)
So? (Score:5, Informative)
So what? Just like windows, Linux ...
Re: (Score:2)
They also just did this with Java. And they'll have an app store for Macintosh soon too. Who wants to bet that both Flash and Java will not get approved in the app-store, while at the same time the app-store will be made to look like the only way to install applications on the Macintosh of the future?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
One good reason would be that once everyone uses Apple's tools to write software for the Mac, they won't need to support a specific processor type. It would enable them to switch CPU architectures once again and do the jump to ARM, perhaps. Remember, that's why they "told" people to use XCode a few months before they switched to Intel. XCode has a simple "Universal Binary" checkbox which produces a PowerPC+x86 application. The next one could produce x86+ARM code before dropping x86 support altogether.
The computing-power-to-watt ratio of ARM is much better than x86, Apple already has their own custom A4 CPU (I imagine 16-cores+ ARM CPUs for laptops and desktops), I guess their own custom ARM CPUs cost less than what Intel is charging them (per computing power units) and it would make it much simpler to write software that works on all Apple hardware in one step if the desktops and laptops switched to ARM too.
As for the "Mac of the future", I see the general public using that model of computing while coders will still get their usual environment (you choose when first setting up the Mac). Otherwise how could we code for all the hardware?
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, this thread is for apple bashing. Legitimate technical strategies have no place here.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the case (Score:3, Insightful)
For one, there's a big difference between performance per watt and watts of power draw period. Mobile phones need a low power draw, regardless of performance. So suppose we have a general Benchmark X that is the be-all, end-all of performance metering. I know it doesn't exist, just as an example. Now suppose a 0.5watt ARM chip does 100 BX units. Suppose then that a 90 watt Core i7 does 40,000 BX units. The Core i7 is actually more than twice as efficient per watt at the BX test. However you still wouldn't u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But it would be tough to get a Dell, HP (etc) without it installed.
Along with a bunch of other crapware. When ever I get a fresh install of windows at work, I have to download flash because it does not come with "windows".
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But it would be tough to get a Dell, HP (etc) without it installed.
Along with a bunch of other crapware. When ever I get a fresh install of windows at work, I have to download flash because it does not come with "windows".
Yeah, Best Buy will do it under warranty...for a price...unless you are running a linux box.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Either Apple gets a bad rep because Flash crashes or is too slow on Mac OS X (but it's not even made by Apple), because they supplied an older version (which could have been more stable, but not up-to-date) or because they stop supplying it and pointing the users to Adobe's website (which is the normal thing to do, and people will rightly associate Flash problems with Adobe, not Apple).
No matter what they do, people will complain.
Re: (Score:2)
people will complain.
who? who are these 'people'? i'm sure some will complain, but i sure won't. as a matter of fact, i don't give a flying fuck what apple does, since i personally don't much like any of their products anyway. and you know what, i don't even particularly mind the grossly dis-proportionate number of apple-related articles published on /., 'cause i can just scroll past them. so really, i don't care!! now, who's with me??
Re: (Score:2)
i personally don't much like any of their products anyway. and you know what, i don't even particularly mind the grossly dis-proportionate number of apple-related articles published on /., 'cause i can just scroll past them.
Yep. Your post betrays your words, though. Implicitly at least.
Re: (Score:2)
You cared enough to tell everyone you don't care though, on an article you supposedly "skip right past".
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:4, Funny)
AFAIK Apple doesn't have a bad rep for not supporting Flash on the iPhone. It's Xerox who has all the blame since Macs and all Apple's products are really copied from Xerox systems. They didn't support Flash either. Also Microsoft Windows is really a DEC VMS system so blame Digital if you have problems with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.
It was actually the Annunaki and the sexigesimal system...there, fixed it for ya.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AFAIK Apple doesn't have a bad rep for not supporting Flash on the iPhone. It's Xerox who has all the blame since Macs and all Apple's products are really copied from Xerox systems. They didn't support Flash either. Also Microsoft Windows is really a DEC VMS system so blame Digital if you have problems with Windows.
For those that don't know, David Cutler, who designed VMS while at DEC, went on to Microsoft where he designed Windows NT. Now, although Mr. Cutler attributes it to coincidence, W N T = V+1 M+1 S+1
Not unlike how it happens that HAL of HAL 9000 fame happens to be I-1 B-1 M-1.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for adding to our already too-nerdy knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I say get rid of all complex applications on the web entirely.
I love the fact that in this day and age, web apps (HTML5, flash, etc) give the seamless auto updating features and zero install. They've spoiled us. However, I think we've forgotten one thing. That a desktop program can be leaps and bounds faster and more featureful. And the landscape has changed now so that desktop programs don't have the same cumbersome pitfalls they used to.
Example: I use a web interface for email, like many others. I love th
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter what they do, people will complain.
Yes, but also, no matter what they do, some people will defend them...
Certainly damned if they take this path (Score:2)
Oh, but users will not complain this way? Broken by design. "My Mac won't work with website XYZ but everybody else's computer works fine. Fix it NOW." The user doesn't care who to "blame." He just bought a computer. Computers are supposed to browse the internet. He can't browse the internet.
And yes, from this point of view, linux is broken by design, too. You want to know why it's not popular on the desktop YET?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I give you credit for the false...trichotomy, but the preferred approach would be to ship an up-to-date version on a system that doesn't hang when it runs.
Not saying Apple should/shouldn't do that, but you're being a tad dishonest in your phrasing of the options.
It would also be somewhat disingenuous to consider any Apple vs. Flash decision in a vacuum. Make no mistake, this is a war for control and power over the mobile web. Flash on Mac is collateral damage.
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple can't ship an up-to-date version of Flash. Adobe hasn't made an auto-update tool, and Apple has their computers ready to run out of the box. Once it leaves the factory, no matter what, at one point the installed Flash version is going to become outdated before the computer is even sold. Why should Apple have to carry the burden of having to install and update software from other companies?
When users have to go to Adobe's website to install Flash, they will associate Flash with Adobe instead of Apple. So if they have Flash problems they will stop pointing at Apple as if it's their fault that Flash sucks.
It will also help lower the supposed "Flash installed base" percentage. I don't know how they test this because I'm personally tired of hearing that "99.9% of users have Flash" when Flash sucks so bad on Mac OS X and Linux and when so many people disable or even delete Flash from their system. I even know someone who deleted Flash from his Windows 7 computer because it kept crashing his system.
Another point is that when security lists are made for all operating systems they include software from the regular installation. If Apple drops Java and Flash they'll cut a huge percentage of security holes from their list which, frankly, is in Apple's best interest.
As for power over the mobile Web, this isn't 1995 anymore. The mobile Web is the regular Web, if you see any difference then you're not coding using Web standards. Flash will disappear just like Shockwave disappeared. It's just a question of time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- an inefficient way to play videos
Please, die flash, die.
Which it won't. There are people touting HTML5 like it's some all conquering replacement. There's a bunch of things you can't do with HTML video, including intelligent bandwidth use (ie dropping to a lower bandwidth if you haven't got enough) and unskippable advertising (which some places will wish to serve, to, you know, pay for the content).
Flash won't die until it can be replaced.
It just works... (Score:4, Interesting)
No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (Score:2, Insightful)
Rumor has it that the new Mac OS App Store forbids relying on optionally-installed frameworks. If Java and now Flash are no longer distributed as a part of the OS then they are no longer eligible to be used for apps. How long until Mac OS users find themselves in that same "walled garden"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
Apple, Java, and the App Store [fuzz.me.uk]. The same clause would cover Flash now it is not being installed by default.
If you have a Apple Developer ID you can see the guidelines [apple.com] yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ive seen the guidelines. Three things:
1) Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle;
2) Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications? This is the Mac OS App Store we're talking about, after all.
3) Nothing precludes you from installing java, flash, and your own app via means other than the app store. If you want to work outside the guidelines, then you lose a distribution channel, and that is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, ive seen the guidelines
Huh? If you had seen the guidelines then why did you accuse the Anonymous Coward of "making shit up" about the optionally-installed frameworks?
Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle
Impractical for Java, but possible for Flash. It does dissuade developers from going down that path though. And Apple have a history of changing the rules for their app stores. I wouldn't put it past them to put a blanket ban on any Flash application in the future.
Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications?
I have seen it used for games and installers for some Windows software. I don't do gaming on the Mac, so
Re: (Score:2)
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
The internets of course. The internet is one big game of "telephone" where a rumour grows as it passes from one person to the next.
Steve Jobs said that the app store would be "ONE" way of getting mac software, not the "ONLY" way. To the average joe, it would be a convenient and "safe" way to get software which will not screw up your computer or steal your information. Power users can always go to places like versiontracker or macupdate to get other third party software that install their own frameworks that
Re: (Score:2)
Java and Flash can still be used in apps, just not apps that live in the App Store.
It probably does make good business sense to make an app store for OS X, since the majority of its users are casual. The 70/30 profit split gives Apple more (undeserved) revenue, and also gives them control over what's most visible--we know how much Apple loves control.
I don't think OS X will end up like iOS, though. The iPhone and iPad are really more like appliances or toys than general-purpose computers. Like a game sys
Re: (Score:2)
So every app that is downloaded from the App store is guaranteed to run on an out of the box mac or a clean install of the OS and this is a bad thing?
That is not the reason for doing this, because until the recent policy changes to Java and Flash on the Mac, applications written using either of those technologies would have worked on a clean install of the OS. If Apple were so worried about it then they didn't need to remove them from the base install.
The real reason is to remove cross platform programs from the App Store. This is helpful for two reasons. It keeps a consistent user interface for applications on the App Store and it differentiates the pro
What's new? (Score:4, Informative)
Windows doesn't include it either.
Maybe some Linux distros (?), but in that case, it would be pretty ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows itself doesn't, but a great many Windows computers do. Along with a great variety of other crapware that doesn't come with a clean Windows install. It's part of what drives down the cost on those mass-market machines: they get paid to give you demos/trials/pre-installed services. Ads, in other words, from the moment you get it out of the box.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been my thought during all of these discussions, but there is a difference. Apple is a hardware company. They sell computers that are supposed to have everything that *most* users need out of the box (they even claim this). Most users need flash. Windows is not a piece of hardware. It is a single piece of software (with many included pieces of software, but you wouldn't exactly complain if they unbundled some of them). Hardware companies who sell computers with Windows on them almost always include
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, "one rule for me, another rule for everyone else" is what that boils down to.
If MS or various Linux distros are not expected to roll their own Flash package and keep it up to date, why should Apple be expected to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how hardware comes into play here.
Windows and Linux desktop distros are both intended to be fairly complete software packages for the desktop, and Flash is software, not hardware.
BUT... I'm not saying this in defense of Apple. I'm saying it in defense of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux. I'm saying it because it doesn't make sense to ship Flash versions with known security vulnerabilities on DVD-ROM's that have to be patched as soon as they're installed.
Nah, then it's better to not ship anything at
In store demo units (Score:2)
The article questions whether Macs in the Apple store will be configured in factory condition (without Flash) or would have flash installed causing possible confusion for buyers. They then go on to state that a Macbook Air they've seen in store did indeed not have Flash installed.
However, one of the benefits of the Apple store is you're generally free to play around with the machines. I've often installed Firefox on these machines, so what's to stop a customer installing flash on the demo machines too. Also
This just in... (Score:2)
Nothing Happened! News at eleven...
Good riddance (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, so I'm playing around with a Drupal site concept in Artisteer. Artisteer lets you drop in Flash animations as little overlays on banners and the like and it comes with a couple of samples. A dead effing simple moving cloud overlay caused the fan in my machine to crank up to hurricane speed. And this is the most recent build of Flash. IMO (definitely not being humble here), Flash blows, literally and figuratively. If Flash had to be certified EnergyStar compliant it would fail miserably.
hate flash (Score:2)
Now Flash can be easily blocked, so it is not such an issue. Flash is also easily installed, so i users wat they can get it.
I would say one
Webcam broadcasting? (Score:2)
They are going to have to find flash. What happens if they select the wrong kind of flash installer of 'any' website that looks right?
What about html5? MS and its silverlight efforts?
But, (Score:2)
I thought the point of buying apple was that it all just works and you don't need to mess around installing stuff like some kind of retarded windoze/Loonix user? What next, a power supply connector that i need to manually unplug before i mince over to get another moccha-latte?
Steve Jobs is a Prophet (Score:2)
How much do you think this has to do with Apple's prediction that Flash will die soon? They can't afford to be wrong about that one. They're doing whatever they can to make Steve Jobs a prophet. In fact this was probably Steve's idea.
Windows doesn't have it either, but Windows as a standalone product is sold to people who are completely capable of easily installing Flash themselves. Most hardware companies (Apple is a hardware company) include Flash with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you missed the part where this was about Mac os x, and not ios?
Re: (Score:2)
iOS =/= OS X
Willfull ignorance or just plain stupidity?
Who knows in an Apple Bash Comment!? It's a lottery!
Re: (Score:2)
i thought iOs ran the mach kernel, and had a similar user-land to that of OSX....
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and it swims like a duck....
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Ubuntu had the same kernel as Red Hat.
They must be identical right? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is beginning to worry me.
I've been recommending Macs to techno-impaired types for a while now because they did in fact pretty much "work out of the box" and required minimal training to operate, particularly in the area of security and updates. But this is now becoming a highly questionable proposition.
Like it or not, many, many websites the average user goes to are full of Flash contents that the users want to see and some of them just plainly refuse to work without. All conversations about standar