Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

353 comments

Lies. (4, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003862)

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. (5, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003876)

Steve would never lie to me! Shut your filthy mouth unbeliever!

Re:Lies. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004024)

Methinks the folks with mod points forgot to turn on their sense of humor this morning.

Re:Lies. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004250)

How could they turn it on?
iSenseOfHumor was rejected by the app store.

Re:Lies. (5, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004128)

Apple doesn't ship the "Adobe Flash" Package in OS X... They ship the Browser Plugin as a part of their Safari web browser.

The Adobe Auto-Updater is not included.

Apple only updated the Flash Plugin via Safari updates.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004306)

Steve would never lie to me! Shut your filthy mouth unbeliever!

Steve is just trying to protect Apple users since Flash usage is of coarse a leading cause of global warming.

Re:Lies. (2)

klashn (1323433) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003880)

Yes, exactly... Apple really does have a vendetta against Adobe. HTML5 is coming

Re:Lies. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003970)

Crap...I have a vendetta against Flash and Apple....Who do I root for?

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004046)

lynx?

Re:Lies. (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003912)

Yep. It's more to do with not shipping with crap-ware that they then have to support / maintain because it "came with my Mac". Been running with flash-block for a few years now and the 'net is a much nicer place...

Simon

Re:Lies. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004118)

I can't wait for the day when I can safely uninstall Flash, like Java before it.

At least with Flash there's nothing of long-lasting value, so the inevitable switch won't be as drawn out and painful as Java was. Flash games have a web-awareness life of 1-2 years at most. And when people finally see what's possible with WebGL and native bindings, they will be flocking away. 2011 will be an interesting year.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004344)

Now I would like to see you block html 5...

Re:Lies. (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003954)

How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux?
It doesn't come with flash either.
You have to download it directly.

Re:Lies. (5, Funny)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003990)

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:Lies. (2, Informative)

udippel (562132) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004112)

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:Lies. (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004190)

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:Lies. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004308)

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 install to download proprietary software from the repos during install, so things like flash etc will work out of the box. That is just one tickbox, not going to a website, downloading and running the installer manually. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004332)

T and G are really, really near each other.
Also, typing "sudo apt-get install flash-player" is a little bit different from going to a web site and downloading it. And a lot more saving time.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004368)

is downloading an installer from a web site really considered "magical" by Linux users?

I've been a linux user for a real dang long time... Outside of experimenting with different programs under development, nvidia drivers and fresh hot kernels, (things therefore not in repositories, that is, especially before repositories were invented)--I could count on one hand the times I've downloaded "an installer" from a website. Magical? No. Unusual? Pretty much.

Re:Lies. (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004136)

Obviously Ubuntu has a vendetta against Flash. And every other program they don't install automatically.

Re:Lies. (5, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004294)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004162)

You can enable flash through ubuntu's package manager.

Re:Lies. (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004318)

how is that different from downloading it? It is still not included by default.

Re:Lies. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004164)

Can I add that Windows 7 doesn't come with flash either.

Re:Lies. (2, Insightful)

pckl300 (1525891) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004188)

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:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004264)

do you remeber the flash imac mess?

that's what apple wants to avoid. not shipping flash permits apple to tell its customer that it's their fault when something goes wrong with flash
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/30/apples-new-27-inch-imacs-experiencing-performance-issues/

Re:Lies. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004286)

No, what you mean is "one rule for Linux, another rule for everyone else"

Re:Lies. (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004334)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004340)

Yo dawg! I'm taking the burden off the user so I can put the burden on the user, all so the turtlenecked goth can continue their eternal suffering

Re:Lies. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004202)

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:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004328)

They could be adopting a policy of not including any non-free software that isn't designed by Apple; ie. non-free for Apple.

Re:Lies. (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004350)

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.

Re:Lies. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004010)

Flash doesn't auto update...at least not on my Macs.

Re:Lies. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004012)

You say 'some sort' as though you don't know what kind of vendetta. Didn't his Steveness illustrate in an open letter how Flash is an old technology and HTML5 is the future?

Re:Lies. (2, Interesting)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004096)

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. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004054)

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. (5, Insightful)

PrimeWaveZ (513534) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004066)

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:Lies. (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004200)

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.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004472)

Condidering the only flash upgrade notices I get are from firefox updates... yeah, there's no auto update on mac.

Re:Lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004214)

On Windows, sure. The updater doesn't exist on Mac OS X.

By removing it from the OS they remove having vulnerable copies from when the image was made (seriously, Adobe has a terrible track record) and wipe themselves clean of responsibility should a flash exploit hose the machine.

Ladies and Gentlemen, (5, Funny)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004230)

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:Lies. (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004298)

safari's flash plugin does not come installed by default. So in this sense, they are right.

So? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003888)

So what? Just like windows, Linux ...

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003944)

Maybe. But it would be tough to get a Dell, HP (etc) without it installed.

Re:So? (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004174)

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:So? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004232)

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.

Re:So? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003950)

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? (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004060)

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? (4, Funny)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004122)

I'm sorry, this thread is for apple bashing. Legitimate technical strategies have no place here.

Re:So? (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004408)

Both Java and Flash apps are not compiled for specific processor types. They are also "Universal Binaries" in that they are interpreted bytecode.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003892)

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:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004040)

"Either Apple gets a bad rep because Flash crashes or is too slow on Mac OS X".

Flash crashes on every platform(OSX, MSWindows, Linux). Nothing to do with Apple. I suppose the MSWin version is the most stable flash version, but it crashes there too.

What is the point of flash again?
- an inefficient way to play videos
- a way to create unusable and annoying web (not really) interfaces.

Please, die flash, die.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (2, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004464)

- 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.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004068)

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:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

udippel (562132) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004178)

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:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004304)

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 (0, Troll)

martas (1439879) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004474)

i said i can scroll past, not have to, or always will.

tits or GTFO.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (3, Funny)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004134)

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:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004148)

I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004252)

I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.

It was actually the Annunaki and the sexigesimal system...there, fixed it for ya.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004248)

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 the portability and the fact that I can use my email from anywhere, on any machine. However, lately I've been using email a lot. Then it dawned on me. Goodness, a genuine desktop e-mail program (like Thunderbird, Outlook)! I forgot how efficient, fast, featureful, and quite frankly amazing using local desktop programs are (after years of using web apps).

Web apps gave us these things, but now with the always on internet, and the fact of auto-updaters for desktop apps being the norm now, maintaining desktop applications are no longer a chore (as opposed to back in the day--how many times did it annoy you to download, then uninstall, and reinstall eudora every single time a new version came out).

Imagine a well designed and coded facebook desktop program (not that I use facebook). How useful that could be. Hell I'd even pay for that. And development tools nowadays are so advanced a company could write once and easily port it to all platforms (Linux, OSX, and Windows). I mean, it's just as cumbersome to develop a rich app for all the different browsers.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (3, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004432)

No matter what they do, people will complain.

Yes, but also, no matter what they do, some people will defend them...

Every time apple says something ... (0, Flamebait)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003906)

Every time Apple says something like this, I get the uneasy feeling of working with a slick-haired businessman who promises that they've got nothing bad planned for the future, but then fuck you in the ass with Perry Saturn's mop.

Them buy a Windows pc if you want flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003908)

preinstalled on your machine.

No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003910)

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:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004044)

Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (2, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004210)

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:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

gorgonite (79857) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004374)

You might still be allowed to include your interpreter in your bundle. This is commonly used for Python applications. Sounds wasteful, though.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004418)

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:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004228)

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 might or might not introduce instability. There will also always be third party drivers and helper applications distributed outside of the app store as well.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004064)

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?

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004208)

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?

Their app store devs should figure out dependencies.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004222)

They did. It's dependent on a vanilla install of OS X.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004292)

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 programs on the Mac compared to other platforms. If most of the programs were just Linux ports then why not just use Linux on cheaper hardware. Apple want to lock both users and developers into their platform.

In the past, a company who wanted to get that sort of lock-in had to embrace, extend and extinguish. Now they just funnel the applications through their distribution method to have control over what can be run on their platforms.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004460)

So the app store will be filled with high quality apps designed for the exclusively for the mac and this bad how? Cross part form apps are a joke. There is no reason any app should be cross platform anymore. Every app should be designed for the platform it's running on. I was going to buy some homebrewing software and I looked at the selection.

Beertools Pro cross platform QT app non native interface.
Beer Alchemy Native Cocoa app. Uses all native user interface elements and Cocoa technologies.
Strange Brew Java app. Slow doesn't use the native interface.

Guess which one I paid money for? Why as a user would I care about cross platform? I use one computer.

Cross platform is just developer speak for I'm lazy.

What is really needed is standard formats. For instance there should be a standard document format. Then users could choose any application they wanted to view or modify that document. Instead of what we have now where you make a Word doc, an OpenOffice doc, or an iWork doc where each program is incompatible with the others.

Re:No more Flash/Java? Gee, wonder why. (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004172)

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 system, the company tightly controls what gets released on it. OS X on the other hand is a fully-functional operating system, and a damn fine one at that. There is enough of a market that uses it for more than web surfing that Apple can't completely close the OS without losing a significant user base. I have no doubt that they'd love to do it if they could--it's the control thing again--but I am confident that they won't.

What's new? (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003914)

Windows doesn't include it either.

Maybe some Linux distros (?), but in that case, it would be pretty ironic.

Re:What's new? (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004322)

windows doesnt advertise "works out of the box", Apple does as for the linux distros, those targeted at the correct audience (Ubuntu untimate edition, easypeasy,etc) may be including it since thats their target market.

Re:What's new? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004326)

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:What's new? (2, Insightful)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004362)

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 Flash. Apple is getting away from their model of "it just works" to "ok, casual users, you are now required to install certain things after you buy your mac. We know that 99% of you will need/want flash at some point, but we are going to make Steve a prophet (and profit) by making sure that Flash is too difficult to install so it will eventually die."

Apple is against Flash and Java (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003922)

And anything else that is programmable and can run applications. Java and Flash can run anything, and that would allow Apple users to easily execute something without getting it from an Apple-controllable app-store! First they did this only to the iPhone, iPad and such, but now they're extending it to their real computers as well. Apple wants to diminish anything programmable. If they could eliminate Java and Flash completely, they would.

Why is this news? D: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003956)

Why is this news? D:

Direct download (-1, Troll)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003966)

Great! I'll just get the most up to date and secure version by direct downloading Flash for my iPhone. No? Hmm... I'll just download Firefox and Thunderbird on the iPhone from Mozilla and fire off an angry e-mail. That's banned too?

The design consistency and the marketing-speak, they do not align.

Re:Direct download (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004084)

Maybe you missed the part where this was about Mac os x, and not ios?

Re:Direct download (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004098)

I didn't realize the MacBook Air is part of the iPhone line. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Direct download (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004324)

iOS =/= OS X

Willfull ignorance or just plain stupidity?

Who knows in an Apple Bash Comment!? It's a lottery!

Re:Direct download (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004454)

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....

Fuck you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34003968)

That mean *BOTH* Apple and Adobe:

- Apple makes politics by trying to commit all member of The Church Of The Great Steve to hate flash, no matter if it's on an iShit or any non iShit-Product
- Adobe makes politics by trying so sneak their crappy downloadmanager, update tools and other crap (like Adobe Reader icons on the Desktop after *EVER*FUCKING*UPDATE*) that noone wants

Get this crap sorted out and don't do it on the back of your paying customers you idiots!

(Yeah, mod me -15 iTroll, don't care. It simply boils down to the facts above.)

Big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004000)

What is the big deal? My windows box or my linux box came with flash pre-installed. So...

In store demo units (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004026)

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 some demo machines have MS Office installed on it but you don't hear about confusion from buyers when they find out they need to buy Office separately although I'm sure it happens sometimes.

I don't see the fuss on this issue. There's a plugin out there and it's easy to install, it makes sense for Apple to make Flash opt-in rather than opt-out.

Me, I've installed flash on my Mac and use Firefox and Safari Flash free and I open up Google Chrome (that has its own built in flash plugin) whenever I need flash.

Why don't I use a flash blocker? Because if you remove flash entirely then many sites will display alternative content where the flash used to be rather than an annoying click to play box.

This just in... (1)

carou (88501) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004042)

Nothing Happened! News at eleven...

Good riddance (3, Interesting)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004150)

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.

Barf (0, Flamebait)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004196)

Apple is such a.... company.. ungh *shudders*

hate flash (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004226)

Years ago when safari was first released, I would always remove from my computer. A few flash items could really bog down a system and there was not a wide availability of flash blocker. Macromedia chose not to put in "default no play" option so I did not use it. The problem was that every time Safari updated Flash would be reinstalled and I had to uninstall it.

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 small thing in defense of not shipping Flash. To be fail Apple should also ship Silverlight. While in such widespread use, every person who watches netflix on Mac needs it. It seems silly to give Flash preferential treatment. The only reason it Apple did so wsa becasuse Apples Ads at one time were flash heavy. Now they aren't.

Frnakly the only useful places I need flash is Google stocks and the fashion sites. Otherwise Flash has become increasingly lame afer a couple years of usefulness.

Webcam broadcasting? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004268)

How are people going to stream a webcam 'out of the box'?
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, (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004274)

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?

Option to download? (1)

diamondsandrain (1628327) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004284)

Hard to tell since its just an image, but is there any attempt on the part of the os to inform you that the missing plugin is actually flash? It doesn't appear to be that way from the image and he claims that it doesn't as well. Windows will tell you that you don't have flash installed and give you the option to go to the adobe site. Hmmm, so Macs are easier to use?

Steve Jobs is a Prophet (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 2 years ago | (#34004390)

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.

For all the flash 'tards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34004424)

i can haz insecure cpu-hogging plug in too? K Tks Adobe

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...