Beta
×

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!

Windows 8 Won't Support Plug-Ins; the End of Flash?

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the flash-always-seems-to-find-a-way dept.

DRM 661

An anonymous reader writes "The Microsoft Windows Engineering Team has announced that the Metro interface web browser in Windows 8 will not support plug-ins — Adobe Flash included. Users will still be able to open a traditional browser interface to make use of legacy sites that rely upon plug-ins. This news follows a recent blog post by the Internet Explorer 10 team pushing the use of HTML5 video as a replacement to Flash video. With Google, Apple, Mozilla, Opera and other major players already backing HTML5 — is Adobe Flash finally dead?"

cancel ×

661 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microsoft (3, Insightful)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408740)

And people are still saying Microsoft is evil? They just made HTML5 video reality. It wouldn't have happened without this.

Re:Microsoft (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408762)

Using patented shit formats. So yes, they are.

Re:Microsoft (3, Interesting)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408776)

As opposed to what? All the formats are patented.

H.264 is technically better format too. That's why it should be picked, not based on some religious free software views.

Re:Microsoft (2)

qxcv (2422318) | about 3 years ago | (#37408950)

As opposed to what? All the formats are patented.

Yes, but the primary patent on VP8 is released under an "irrevocable free patent license". From Wikipedia:

On May 19, 2010 Google released VP8 codec software under a BSD-like license and the VP8 bitstream format specification under an irrevocable free patent license...

OTOH H.264 is covered by a range of patents, and payment for the use of the codec is mandatory in all countries which recognise software patents. Whilst there may be some submarine patents still lurking on parts of VP8, it sounds like a far safer bet in the long run. I suspect that the only reason Apple and Microsoft want H.264 is because it raises the cost bar for potential competitors in the browser market. It's difficult to create a free browser when you have to cough up for codec licensing to some patent troll. With H.264 everybody loses, but the small players lose slightly more :)

Re:Microsoft (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408974)

It's difficult to create a free browser when you have to cough up for codec licensing to some patent troll.

But you don't have to. Both Windows and Mac OSX include H.264 support in the system, and Linux has their own counterparts too. Your browser can just use what the OS offers.

Re:Microsoft (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37409006)

Both Windows and Mac OSX include H.264 support in the system

Windows XP does not. Nor do Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter.

and Linux has their own counterparts too.

These counterparts aren't included with Ubuntu or Fedora due to patent issues in the world's biggest industrialized anglophone market. Which counterparts are you thinking of?

Re:Microsoft (0)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37409140)

Windows XP is 10 years old OS. Besides, those OS won't be able to show H.264 video in other browsers either, unless you install third party plugin. It would be no different between your new fancy browser and the existing browsers.

Besides, Linux desktop market share is so small that it shouldn't dictate rest of the world and make it choose a lot worse format just because a few geeks can't run it (while they can and probably already do, but they just like to bitch). H.264 is technically better and there's no practical reason not to use it, so it should be chosen.

Re:Microsoft (1)

smash (1351) | about 3 years ago | (#37409176)

Yeah, but vp8 is shit.

Re:Microsoft (2)

smash (1351) | about 3 years ago | (#37409194)

And besides, the ground vp8 is standing on is fairly shaky, legally. It hasn't been to court yet, but google are refusing to indemnify anyone against patent litigation because they aren't confident in the codebase being patent free.

Re:Microsoft (5, Insightful)

sinthetek (678498) | about 3 years ago | (#37409018)

H.264 is technically better format too. That's why it should be picked, not based on some religious free software views.

Not all concerns about the Freedom to use a technology are matters of obsessive fanboyism or faith. There are plenty of pragmatic concerns associated with IP that only the most reckless would choose to ignore. A technology can be 1000x better than anything else that exists but still be effectively useless or a huge risk to end-users or business management. As an end user, I don't want my choices limited by how many technologies a prospective vendor can afford to employ. As a developer, I want to be able to create or fix technologies I encounter without much bureaucracy, being hindered by secrecy or risking having all of my hard work phased out through planned obsolescence strategies. As a business owner, I don't want the items purchased by my business to be hindered by cumbersome, nuanced, legal agreements. In my view, the diversity and innovation facilitated by Free software is almost always better even in cases where proprietary counterparts have a few more features or slightly better performance. Essentially, the freedom to do what you want has its own innate value that, while hard to quantify, should be thoroughly considered before making *any* important decisions, both technology-related and otherwise. It's not always easy to predict when and how those restrictions might hinder your opportunities in the future.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409102)

It's about legal issues in the US, its people want access to online video as well. Choosing h.264 would deny them access to this content as well as anyone who obtains their OS or browser from the US (but not from MSFT or Apple). US patent law isn't compatible with the freedoms that the rest of the world enjoys, but any FLOSS developer wants their software to be exchangeable by anyone in any country at no additional cost. THAT is why h.264 is a bad choice and until the US stops upholding software patents, it remains so. But if you want to be ignorant about it, be my guest. Just don't complain when you get sued for not paying royalties when you distribute a technically superior codec.

Re:Microsoft (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 3 years ago | (#37408792)

h.264 is patented, but it is by no means "shit".

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408772)

Eh, the death of Flash has been called dozens of times before this and I have little doubt it will be called again many times after Windows 8 launches. Note that its the built in Metro interface that won't support it, not Internet Explorer, which will still be included and most likely still be the web browsing experience of choice for most users, or at least those who don't already use an alternative browser. The lack of plugin support will only serve to kill Metro as a browser platform, not Flash.

Re:Microsoft (2)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408812)

The lack of plugin support will only serve to kill Metro as a browser platform, not Flash.

iPad doesn't have Flash either and it's doing all fine. Note that Metro interface is designed mostly for tablets and as a simplistic interface for casual users.

But you're right, it won't kill of Flash because it's used for other stuff than video too. The existing video sites will just sniff the user-agent and serve HTML5 video instead of Flash if required. They're both H.264 encoded anyway, so it should be easy, and they have to do it for iPhones and iPads anyway.

Re:Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409076)

I have several customers who have purchased iPad and the lack of flash support is a big turn off to all of them. I have one person specifically who has decided to sell their iPad and wait until they 'mature' into a device that will actually run the websites he's interested in. The iPad is doing alright for a fad device, but when you hobble something then expect users to be somewhat put off by it. Just image how much better they would continue to do if they had just added flash support.

Re:Microsoft (1)

wsxyz (543068) | about 3 years ago | (#37409130)

That guy might as well just go buy a Galaxy Tab, because the iPad will never 'mature' into a device that lets him view his flash-based porn.

SVG animation (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37409100)

Note that Metro interface is designed mostly for tablets and as a simplistic interface for casual users.

But aren't "casual users" the ones most likely to be playing SWF games on Newgrounds and Facebook and the like?

But you're right, it won't kill of Flash because it's used for other stuff than video too.

Including vector animated series such as Homestar Runner and Weebl and Bob.

The existing video sites will just sniff the user-agent and serve HTML5 video instead of Flash if required.

SVG animation is reportedly even more CPU intensive than Flash animation, and converting it to H.264 or VP8 would bloat its bitrate by a factor of ten.

they have to do it for iPhones and iPads anyway.

How well do iPhones and iPads display SVG animation?

Re:Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408828)

Do they consider silverlight is a plugin?

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409000)

Yes

Re:Microsoft (5, Funny)

wsxyz (543068) | about 3 years ago | (#37409016)

Of course not. Silverlight is HTML5.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408832)

It still hasn't happened and it was goibg to happen eventually anyway.

Re:Microsoft (1)

bobdinkel (530885) | about 3 years ago | (#37408834)

While Microsoft's use of HTML5 video will certainly broaden its support, HTML5 video would have happened without it. It's already well on its way. Your claim that it wouldn't have happened without it is baseless. This really has nothing to do with Microsoft being perceived as evil.

Re:Microsoft (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408900)

... HTML5 video would have happened without it. It's already well on its way.

That's almost like the usual "2012 will be the year of desktop!". We've been talking about HTML5 video for years and it has gone nowhere, except for a few special cases from Google (which have required you to install Chrome to view them, by the way). Even Google doesn't use HTML5 video on YouTube, and their old experimental test player is broken as hell and lacking a lot of things that the Flash player has.

Re:Microsoft (2)

bobdinkel (530885) | about 3 years ago | (#37409084)

I consume HTML5 video almost daily. Support for HTML5 video in recent browsers is solid. I work for an organization that produces several national and international publications and we publish HTML5 video content daily. Numerous news sites are publishing HTML 5 video. If you want to serve video to iOS devices (and most of us do), you're going to use HTML5. It's here. Really the one problem that I don't see resolved with HTML5 is DRM. Arguably that isn't a problem. But I have a hard time imagining Hulu or Netflix rolling out an HTML5 UI anytime soon.

Re:Microsoft (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37408836)

so microsoft has magically changed because they are pushing HTML5? Wow man, I'd better forget all of those antitrust cases and anti-google marketing and anti-apple marketing, plus patent trolling and patent litigation.

Leopards don't change their spots.

Re:Microsoft (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408884)

No, the recent years have shown that Microsoft has truly changed. Microsoft's antitrust cases are from the 90's, you know. Google is currently being investigated for a lot of shit in various countries, not Microsoft.

And care to link some of those anti-google and anti-apple marketing or patent trolling Microsoft is doing? Because they are not. Microsoft has never patent trolled anyone, they have only used their patents when someone has attacked them or when there has been a good case. Patent trolling is completely different subject.

Re:Microsoft (1)

arnott (789715) | about 3 years ago | (#37408978)

No, the recent years have shown that Microsoft has truly changed. Microsoft's antitrust cases are from the 90's, you know. Google is currently being investigated for a lot of shit in various countries, not Microsoft. And care to link some of those anti-google and anti-apple marketing or patent trolling Microsoft is doing? Because they are not. Microsoft has never patent trolled anyone, they have only used their patents when someone has attacked them or when there has been a good case. Patent trolling is completely different subject.

Check this : Microsoft's Android Shakedown [forbes.com]

This story sheds light on the recent string of stories about Microsoft demanding royalty payments from various companies that produce smart phones built on Google‘s Android operating system. Intuitively, this doesn’t make much sense. Most people would say that Google has been more innovative than Microsoft in recent years—especially in the mobile phone market—so why is Microsoft the one collecting royalties?

The whole article is very interesting.

Re:Microsoft (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37409042)

So Microsoft is fairly collecting royalties on what technologies they have researched and developed, just like every other company including all the mobile phone makers, Apple and even Google. Usually the companies make contracts along the lines of "you can use my patents, I can use yours", but Google come in as a new player and didn't have anything to on the table. They tried to sneak out of it by leaving the payments to manufacturers (they do that kind of sneaky stuff a lot, like tunneling money between tax heavens in Europe). It's only fair that Google has to pay for the use of technologies other companies have invested millions into.

FAT patents (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37409068)

So Microsoft is fairly collecting royalties on what technologies they have researched and developed

Which read-write file system for removable storage media is 1. supported in Windows and 2. not patented?

Re:Microsoft (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 years ago | (#37409142)

Google is currently being investigated for a lot of shit in various countries, not Microsoft.

Really that's your argument? A bunch of people don't like their photos taken in public and complain when someone records their open wifi connections and you compare it to the largest anti-trust case the world has ever witnessed?

Welcome to planet earth stranger, we hope you enjoy your visit.

Re:Microsoft (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37409160)

this is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Remind me who is collecting royalties on android right now?

Remind me who is using patents to defend themselves against microsoft right now?

I know you might think microsoft is magical, or be employed by them, or generally think they might be ethical, but changes of that kind take 50-100 years, not the timespan it takes you to write up something purporting a change that has not occurred.

Where's microsoft contributing open source voluntarily, and REAL open source (and not their own definition)? Where's microsoft not trying to crush their competitors? Why's microsoft still continually quoting Florian? Why's microsoft think they're the center of the universe?

ETC. None of this has changed.

Re:Microsoft (1)

Antitorgo (171155) | about 3 years ago | (#37409026)

And yet here they are *TIGHTLY* integrating the browser into the OS (you know, just like Chrome does) which was what the whole antitrust case forbid Microsoft to do until last year. Seems interesting that when you look at it, a lot of the progress that Microsoft could have been making in this direction wasn't allowed up until recently.

Re:Microsoft (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37409190)

And yet here they are *TIGHTLY* integrating the browser into the OS (you know, just like Chrome does)

Apple too. They do the same thing with OS X and Safari. It's funny to hear all the Macheads who still badmouth MS for that case in the 90's, completely oblivious to the fact that Apple is doing the EXACT same thing today that got MS in trouble back then (bundling its own browser with its OS).

The whole case was a relic of the 90's that should have never even made it to trial. Bundling a default browser with the your OS today is the norm, but in the 90's it was a new idea. If you tried to bring that case today (if Google sued Apple over Safari for example), you would be laughed out of court.

Re:Microsoft (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | about 3 years ago | (#37409132)

Microsoft has changed but only because their competition changed. Going from other competitors selling OS'es (Amiga, BeOS, Commodore) with similar business models to Linux and open source (can't undercut free), Google (mostly untouchable through search and internet applications) and Apple stuck to defining their own thing which nobody has the patience to emulate.
This means MS don't have the same grip on the industry anymore, they use to say MS WAS the industry in the 90's. Now they have to actually do some work against forces that are not pissing around. They are still evil but they aren't the only evil ones any more: in terms of Sci-fi they went from being Emperor Palpatine status to just being the equal of the Klingons, still a bunch of bastards but they are playing fairer now.

Re:Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | about 3 years ago | (#37408856)

And the story has the DRM/Straitjacket icon? Seriously, WTF? The reporting on this story is just terrible, even by Slashdot standards.

Headline: "Windows 8 Won't Support Plug-Ins ..."
Reality: "... Metro interface web browser in Windows 8 will not support plug-ins ..."

This announcement sounds perfectly reasonable to me--not having plugins in the Metro browser closes a lot of security holes and eliminates crap like Flash that's proprietary, hurts performance, etc. It's a competitive move that raises the bar for other browsers to become more secure and stop supporting things that people don't want.

Microsoft is not the evil company that this site thinks it still is. Time to find a new whipping boy, Slashdot.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37409082)

Microsoft is still as evil as ever. It's just that everyone else has caught up to their level of evil, so it doesn't seem as disproportionate anymore.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 3 years ago | (#37408878)

Did you know Flash can do more than just playing video?

Re:Microsoft (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 3 years ago | (#37408976)

Did you know Flash can do more than just playing video?

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me, pick me! Oh thank you, Sir!

The correct answer is: Yes, but we don't want the flash ads, online minigames are the facedevilbook's work so who needs that crap when you can play Angry Birds on your iDevice, and who seriously still watches Strongbad e-mails anyway?

At least, that's the excuses I've gathered from previous discussions.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409080)

Like check for grammar mistakes?

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408944)

Internet Explorer is no longer the majority of browsers on the internet.

And it's HTML5 video... with microsoft patent codecs. They're still a gaggle of douche bags. I mean a fucking sales guy runs the place, what do you expect?

Re:Microsoft (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#37408958)

Microsoft is only going to support the codecs they want to support, so this is just another way of leveraging what's left of their monopoly position — it's just more evil. The real goal is to murder Flash which competes with Microsoft's own technologies, like the supposedly-soon-to-be-abandoned Silverlight. Silverlight is pure canned shit compared to Flash. You can't even sync video to vtrace on XP. Microsoft literally traded a seat on their board for Netflix using Silverlight instead of Flash. As a result, there is no Linux support.

Fuck Microsoft, and fuck the horse that rode in on them.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409122)

Are they dropping the stupid "X-UA-Compatible" meta tag?

Re:Microsoft (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 years ago | (#37409162)

They just made HTML5 video reality.

Not really.

My mom: "YouTube doesn't work on my new laptop."
Me: "Install Firefox or Chrome or Opera or Safari or Netscape Navigator 4.1"

That's what happens when you say no to Microsoft. (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#37408754)

Remember all those rumors of Microsoft wanting to buy Adobe?

This is payback for saying "No" to Uncle Stevie. You can be sure that if the deal had gone through, flash would not only have been supported, but integrated into the next release of IE.

Re:That's what happens when you say no to Microsof (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#37408784)

Maybe, or maybe, the IE team, like the Firefox team, is awfully tired of their software being used as a vector for Flash's seemingly infinite supply of vulnerabilities.

Re:That's what happens when you say no to Microsof (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37408852)

Adobe doesn't really care about Flash, as long as there's other alternative. They care about selling designing software for those technologies, and that can be either Flash, Silverlight or HTML5. Sadly, HTML5 isn't really there yet, and it's missing a lot of stuff that Flash and Silverlight have.

Re:That's what happens when you say no to Microsof (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | about 3 years ago | (#37408886)

The people who run Slashdot obviously noticed, because they sure as hell aren't saying no to these ads MS is putting in the queue.

Re:That's what happens when you say no to Microsof (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 3 years ago | (#37409174)

What else exactly is going on in the tech world? You have tons of new information about the next version of the most popular operating system in the world coming from a developers conference of all places. It's literally the definition of both news for nerds and stuff that matters. Not everyone who reads /. is a linux zealot. We have jobs developing for windows, and this news is crucial.

NewGrounds (2)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 3 years ago | (#37408758)

So it won't be possible to play NewGrounds games with that browser?

Boring...

Re:NewGrounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409002)

No NewGrounds? I can see all the MS shills installing Ubuntu now...

The more important point here (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37408764)

The lack of Adobe Flash support shouldn't be the issue here. The real thing that should concern us is that it won't support *ANY* plug-in. It seems like everything is becoming a walled garden these days. For a long time, the trend for browsers was MORE "modability" and freedom, not less. Now we're going backwards.

I just hope Mozilla doesn't get any ideas. Firefox is still the best browser out there for add-ons.

Re:The more important point here (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 years ago | (#37408788)

all the ifans say you can do everything in HTML5 so no plug in needed

Re:The more important point here (1)

Nadir (805) | about 3 years ago | (#37408854)

Then why do they have a bazillion iapps ?

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409010)

You're out of date. As of the last WWDC, it was officially 10 bazillion apps.

Re:The more important point here (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37408882)

If HTML5 could deliver on even half the abilities its devotees seem to think it can, it would also come with free unicorns and pixie dust.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408822)

What plug-ins do you actually need for your mobile browser? What freedom is being limited by the lack of plug-ins in your mobile browser? And, more importantly, what freedom for the vast majority of non-geek users is being limited by the lack of plug-ins in their mobile browsers?

I think when you attempt to answer that final question you might realize why they don't consider plug-ins in their mobile browser architecture to be important.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408870)

um this isn't about any mobile platform, it's about the desktop platform, the windows 8 OS and Internet Explorer 10. this is about the PC platform.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408910)

Um, wrong. Try reading the article.

Re:The more important point here (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 3 years ago | (#37409196)

Wrong, it's about the metro IE 10. Desktop IE 10 will use plugins.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408934)

Like, the freedom to do whatever I want with my hardware, man. It's my hardware, man, I bought it, and Microsoft has no right to tell me how to use it. If I want plugins, man, someone should make some for me to run. Its all a walled garden man, for sheep to play in. I'm not a sheep man.

It's all about freedom and choice and Microsoft and Apple just don't get it man. They are going down man.

Unless, of course, the choice is to be able to run either of two different window environments, and then that choice is stupid because it'll be all confusing and stuff and I like having overlapping windows.

Re:The more important point here (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37409136)

What plug-ins do you actually need for your mobile browser?

How about a plug-in to play Strong Bad Emails and other vector animations? SVG animation is possible in theory, but in practice, it's far behind Flash in frame rate.

And, more importantly, what freedom for the vast majority of non-geek users is being limited by the lack of plug-ins in their mobile browsers?

The freedom to make and publish vector animations.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408872)

I don't think you're using the term "walled garden" properly. Microsoft isn't responsible for the entire web. They're disabling access to only a small subset of it. And you are still free to use whatever native app you want to enable rich functionality, or even go with a third-party browser.

Re:The more important point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408952)

im not vey familiar with them, but im wondering if screen readers use plugins for the browser(s) to help read the document (not too sure how else they'd do it).

If so, and microsoft blocks plugins and forces people to use a legacy browser, that may prove to be an issur with the ADA.

Heck, even flash and PDFs can get you sued by the ADA and others of similar nature if the flash or PDF isnt designed and setup properly. For example, if you have flash with roll overs or an image that changes, some screen readers see that as a page reload or changing content and starts over.

And yes, the ADA and the like can and will sue for stuff like that... just ask Penn State University who was hit with a lawsuite this past december due to the flash stuff.

Re:The more important point here (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 3 years ago | (#37409106)

I think people here are blinded by their hatred for flash. But it's not flash that's the problem, but rather the misuse of it all over the web, and the way it can hog the CPU rather than giving it only x percent, or the way one can't isolate which tab has the flash app running.

Okay, things could be better in the flash world, but to restrict it, and *all other plugins* is restricting freedom in exactly the kind of way that Slashdotters would usually despise. I think MS are just trying to copy Apple, and that's sad.

Crippled Toy!!! (1)

wsxyz (543068) | about 3 years ago | (#37408790)

I won't ever use Windows! If it can't show me the WHOLE web then it's just a crippled toy!

Re:Crippled Toy!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408846)

sent from my iPod

Flash Dead? Let's hope so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408796)

Flash is nothing but a giant XSS Vessel, or something to convey annoying ads (my favourites are the one that play sound randomly, or cover the whole page you're viewing). Then again, HTML5 will probably just embed these 'features' into the browsers now, instead of being able to disable these things by not installing Flash.

Re:Flash Dead? Let's hope so. (1)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | about 3 years ago | (#37408896)

The real question is ... what does Netcraft have to say about all this?

Incoming money-quote: (4, Informative)

Elbart (1233584) | about 3 years ago | (#37408800)

"the Metro style browser in Windows 8" METRO! Not the desktop-IE. Reading, guys, reading...

Re:Incoming money-quote: (1)

adonoman (624929) | about 3 years ago | (#37408876)

If I had mod-points today you'd get them all. There's a button in the metro-style IE to switch to the desktop-IE which does support plugins. This is about battery consumption and providing a consistent touch-interface in metro. Plug-ins (especially Java and Flash) are terrible for pegging the CPU at 100% to display some ads, which sucks down battery like it's going out of style.

The desktop IE still supports plugins and trusted activeX and everything else that IE9 has.

Hooray walled garden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408804)

Gotta admit, sometimes the Microsoft-Apple dictatorship approach to platform design benefits users.

This is one of those times. Flash was slick at one time, but it's become a crutch used by too many lousy designers. Adobe has had too little incentive to improve it and performance and security have suffered.

Re:Hooray walled garden! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#37409088)

The FSF approach was years ahead: never using proprietary software like flash to begin with.

Nope (5, Informative)

russlar (1122455) | about 3 years ago | (#37408814)

FTFA:

In Windows 8, IE 10 is available as a Metro style app and as a desktop app. The desktop app continues to fully support all plug-ins and extensions.

Re:Nope (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 years ago | (#37408982)

Yes, basically it's just saying Microsoft is making it's tablets/phones like the iPhone in not supporting Flash, whilst all normal desktop browsers and Android phones will continue to support it - and most importantly - other plugins too.

Re:Nope (1)

adonoman (624929) | about 3 years ago | (#37409054)

Close- basically it's just saying Microsoft is making its mobile shell like the iPhone in not supporting Flash, whilst every system that has Windows 8 will be able to click/tap a button and switch to a full browser with a less mobile-friendly battery usage and user interface.

Re:Nope (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37409052)

Holly crap. Well what could possibly go wrong. Good heavens what a mess if you use IE this one on this machine it supports x if you use it that way on the same machine it doesn't freaking great consistent experience.

Who cares if it's dead? Kill it -- with fire. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408818)

Flash is the single buggiest, leakiest, most insecure and least reliable piece of software on your average PC.

Adobe keeps it out of scrutiny despite its many problems. Using it means relying on a company with a history of buying promising products, only to let them fester through a lack of updates. Writing code for Flash is like throwing it into a failed tributary of history.

Let's move away from these weird closed standards.

Who has the most clout in this battle? (1)

FriendlyPrimate (461389) | about 3 years ago | (#37408824)

Let's step back....is this more of a problem for Adobe Flash or Windows? If I'm a normal person with the choice of buying an Android or Windows tablet, am I going to buy the one that plays Flash or the one that doesn't?

I don't think Microsoft really has that much clout anymore. There are consumer choices now, and they can just arbitrarily decide to drop support for something without repercussions.

Re:Who has the most clout in this battle? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#37409172)

If you're a normal person, you'll buy an iPad.

MS is making a mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408858)

I know many major corporations depend upon Flash for displaying content in online training. Their response will be "We will have to spend how much if we upgrade to the next version of Windows?" This means that they will have to pay to have all of that training reworked (and it won't be cheap).

It looks like Windows 8 will be another Windows Me/Vista.

exaggerated rumors... (1)

muckracer (1204794) | about 3 years ago | (#37408862)

Flash isn't dead until Netcraft confirms it! :-P

Stupid Title (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 3 years ago | (#37408864)

Once again, this is a stupid title for an article.

Here's the truth: Windows 8 supports everything Windows 7 supports. In Windows 8, there will be TWO IE browsers, though. The "regular", desktop browser which acts the same as IE9 does today (i.e. it will support plugins) and a "Metro-style" browser, which is more geared towards touch and tablet use. THIS is what won't support plugins. That's it!
If you need to use a plugin, you can push a button and be taken to the desktop version of IE. Or, you know, use a different web browser.

Re:Stupid Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408904)

Who the fsck uses Internet Explorer anyway these days?

Mod parent up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408920)

Parent is correct, and the summary is nonsense.

Re:Stupid Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408922)

Sounds like you are drinking the Kool-Aid that Microsoft wants you to drink. When the other browsers "fight" Microsoft, they will copy their simplification, and in the end the user loses.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Ghandi

Why is this "DRM"? (1)

brusk (135896) | about 3 years ago | (#37408890)

I can think of a dozen other categories under which to put this article; DRM would never have occurred to me.

Only the "Metro IE" is Plug-In Free (2)

MikeyC01 (231948) | about 3 years ago | (#37408892)

Metro IE is plug-in free ... Click a button in it to view it in the "other IE" or launch IE from the "Desktop" and you get good old IE 10 complete with chrome and plug-ins and all the blinky Flash ads you can handle!

Thank you Mr. Peabody (1)

Torodung (31985) | about 3 years ago | (#37409072)

launch IE from the "Desktop" and you get good old IE 10

Thank you, traveler, for this post from the future. I am reassured that "good old IE 10" will have been running Flash. What's IE 11 going to have been like?

Hope I got my time-travel grammar right there. ;^)

(Otherwise, spot on, as many have pointed out.)

You can't kill Flash! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408894)

How else will I block 90% of all adds by simply disallowing execution of .swf content?

Killing Flash would make adblock/noscript's job a lot harder, not to mention prevent you from being able to see all the older, non-maintained sites out there that still use Flash sitenavs.

I for one am saddened at the move to video in HTML5--it may make multimedia native, but it blurs the lines between what should rightly be handled by something other than the browser and the browser engine itself.

Makes sense (2, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | about 3 years ago | (#37408924)

Microsoft said the Metro interface will be loaded with a minimal Windows 8 back end (DLLs, drivers, etc), to make loading it quick and use less memory, if they supported plugins that would put an unknown amount of time on loading and memory usage and rely on 3rd parties for a fast browsing experience, especially on slower tablet devices.

"the Metro interface web browser in Windows 8" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408936)

It's okay, nobody is gonna use that.

Still hope.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408940)

While Flash may not exist as a plug-in for browsers, its code can still be compiled down into other usable formats and knowing Adobe, they will be bringing those formats to bear to remain relevant.

Jogar Jogo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408962)

GooD Jogar Jogo [jogarjogo.net]

Flash will linger for years to come. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | about 3 years ago | (#37408986)

Even if the biggest sites turns away from flash it will linger on for years to come. If Microsoft does this, the users of Windows 8 will suffer for it or install another browser with the capabilities they need. Personally i would never buy a device that doesnt handle flash. Not because i love flash but because i need it to be able to view much of the internet.

The only people this will hurt are the users of Windows 8.

No plugins, huh? So, no java web start either? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 years ago | (#37409024)

That spells the end of a lot (not all) of Java's usefulness too.

is Adobe Flash finally dead? (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 years ago | (#37409066)

We can only hope.

How I see this... (5, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | about 3 years ago | (#37409070)

Adobe Flash: I'm not dead.
The Internet: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Google: Yes he is.
Flash: I'm not.
The Internet: He isn't.
Opera Software: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Flash: I'm getting better.
Mozilla: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Internet: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Flash: I don't want to go on the cart.
Apple: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Internet: I can't take him.
Flash: I feel fine.
W3C: Oh, do us a favor.
The Internet: I can't.
Google: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Internet: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Apple: Well, when's your next round?
The Internet: Thursday.
Flash: I think I'll go for a walk.
Mozilla: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Flash: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[Microsoft glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Flash with his a whack of his club]
W3C: Ah, thank you very much.
The Internet: See you on Thursday.

we can dream... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409110)

sad to say adobe will find some way to continue making the web miserable with a poor video product.

Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409144)

This is actually quite brilliant. Remember the clusterfuck that was ios not supporting flash due to battery drain, exploits etc? I would have loved to have to option of viewing flash on my iPhone, and this gives it to the user. Have a slick, lean, mean (slightly crippled) browser that will cater for most day to day browsing needs and at the click of a button, if required, a more fully featured, more battery hungry alternative.

Great for choice and great for battery life :)

Summary of what this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409180)

The developers are moving the security vulnerabilities from the plug-in's back to the core app ... That's all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?