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!

Adobe Releases Flash 11 and AIR 3

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the is-this-what-death-sounds-like dept.

Apple 174

iamrmani writes "Software maker Adobe Systems has launched Flash Player 11 and Adobe AIR 3 even as the industry is shifting to HTML 5 on the Web that lessens the reliance of developers on Flash." The Register has a bit more to say about Adobe's repositioning of Flash for games as a competetive strategy.

cancel ×

174 comments

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

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469544)

cool story bro

Adobe has nothing to Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469556)

Provided they continue making authoring tools that have the ability to export to HTML5.

Re:Adobe has nothing to Fear (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470716)

I don't see that as an impossibility... though the immaturity of WebSockets, and limited support in Web frameworks under .Net and Java will hinder early adoption. One of Flash's biggest assets, imho, has been the ability to utilize socket communication. It's even been used as a socket adapter for older browsers for WebSocket use. Beyond that, most of what Flash offers (other than packaging) can be done in X/HTML5.

I like how the author (3, Insightful)

jtgarris (2434500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469584)

is surprised that Adobe would keep releasing products as people start relying on them less. How else are they going to compete.

Re:I like how the author (2)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469842)

Maybe they are going to buy up some really cheap Borders Books franchises.

Re:I like how the author (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470082)

And rename it Bookster?

Re:I like how the author (2)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470294)

By suing the W3C claiming that they violated look-and-feel patents? *ducks*

Re:I like how the author (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470478)

They're not going to compete. HTML5 competes with the Flash plugin. This is not a revenue generator for Adobe, it's a thing that the give away to try to persuade people to buy their authoring tools. As it becomes well supported, Adobe can transition the developer tools over to targeting HTML5 as well as, then instead of, the Flash plugin. Long term, they stop having to develop Flash (which costs them money) and get to keep selling the authoring tools. What's not to like?

Re:I like how the author (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470596)

I'm not actually seeing a decrease in usage on the desktop of Flash tho - HTML5 uptake seems to be great on mobile platforms (generally because there is no alternative with IOS), but Youtube et al still serve me Flash even when I'm on a HTML5 capable browser... (and no, the opt-in trial does not count).

Plus of course there is still things in the video arena that Flash still does better than HTML5.

Noooooooooo!!!!! (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469596)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Re:Noooooooooo!!!!! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469866)

Are you also looking forward to doing some flash upgrades, and then another round when the inevitable security issues are eventually patched?

Re:Noooooooooo!!!!! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470152)

Oh absolutely. It's going to be oh so much fun updating sixty computers with that fucking thing, and then doing it again and again and again and again.

Re:Noooooooooo!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470412)

If you have 60 machines and are not automating this, are you incompetent or just paid by the hour?

Re:Noooooooooo!!!!! (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470512)

Yeah overtime hours here I come! Daddy just got paid.

YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469604)

I have been using the YouTube HTML 5 [youtube.com] trial for a while now, and it's great. I can assure you, browsing YouTube with the flash plugin disabled is thoroughly enjoyable. I normally do have the plugin disabled (via the QuickJava firefox extension), only turning it on to watch video, but now with the YouTube trial I rarely need it.

Re:YouTube (1)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469666)

Some (all?) videos with ads still require flash unfortunately.

Weebl's Stuff (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469946)

Yes, HTML5 works wonderfully for video made of pixels. But for video made of vectors (e.g. almost everything on Weebl's Stuff or Newgrounds), Flash still way outperforms animated SVG in rendering speed, and it outperforms rasterization and compression with H.264 by a factor of about ten in bitrate.

Re:Weebl's Stuff (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470068)

Yes, HTML5 works wonderfully for video made of pixels. But for video made of vectors (e.g. almost everything on Weebl's Stuff or Newgrounds), Flash still way outperforms animated SVG in rendering speed, and it outperforms rasterization and compression with H.264 by a factor of about ten in bitrate.

And Flash is the way to go for anything that's frameless, has a variable framerate, is interactive in anyway, or is an interface/application that can't be handled by HTML5+Javascript. Flash is a LOT more than "video". The fact that 90% of the time it's used for video doesn't change that.

Re:Weebl's Stuff (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470360)

And Flash is the way to go for anything that [...] is interactive in anyway, or is an interface/application that can't be handled by HTML5+Javascript.

For the record, what can Flash do that HTML5 + JavaScript cannot, other than 1. efficient vector animation and 2. camera and mic access?

Re:Weebl's Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470486)

Allow you to release a game that everyone can play with a single mouse click, on any platform, by just uploading one single .swf file?

Data URIs (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470708)

So it appears your core issue is that a web application comes in multiple files, as opposed to a .swf that has multiple resources packed into it. Let me introduce you to the data URI [wikipedia.org] , which works in any browser passing Acid2.

Re:Weebl's Stuff (1)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470714)

Yes, HTML5 works wonderfully for video made of pixels

Not really. Working with major video publishers, we have learned that HTML5 means iPad. Noone cares about webm or ogg, we are asked to create MP4 for VOD and/or MPEG-TS for live streams and that is it. They are very happy with RTMP and FLV video for browsers and for now they only care about iPad when it comes to tablets

As a developer I find HTML5 a pain in the butt because video players behave differently on different devices and browsers. iPads do not allow more than one video play at the same time (note that I have long accepted HTML5 video=iPad). So not only does it put a limitation on the application you are designing, you also need to to maintain browser compatibility in your code.

You may say "well flash sucks, you need developers, build environments, maintenance, etc.", and you would be right. But we have already done those, they are in place, they are well known and well documented. And guess what, they work great.

If you are to propose a replacement for Flash video I think you need to make a really good case first.

Fighting till the end... (1)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469630)

It seems that Adobe doesnt want to go out without a fight. This will not save flash though. Without iOS support, flash will not be able to survive. I guess I should be thankful to apple.

I am happy to see that we can finally get rid of flash on the web. (It'll most likely still stay in gaming (Scaleform))

On a side note, what does this story have to do with apple?

Re:Fighting till the end... (2)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469688)

You just mentioned apple as being the reason why flash won't be able to survive.

Re:Fighting till the end... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470306)

Well, unless time travel is involved, pigeonholing the story in "apple.slashdot.org" isn't well justified by a comment 9 minutes after the story went live.

Kind of a slow week, apple-wise. Maybe the editors have decided to start padding out specific subjects with off-topic stories. It's not as if they particularly care, and the obvious asymmetry between "apple" and "yro" may jeopardize page views somehow.

Re:Fighting till the end... (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469750)

Yes, without that 17% of the mobile market, Adobe is DOOMED! It doesn't matter that over 60% of the mobile market and 100% of the desktop market supports it, that 17% of smartphones that don't will spell their end!

Is this what Apple fanboys actually believe?

Re:Fighting till the end... (2)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469822)

That's almost reasonable. If you have to do something different to target that significant market, and that something also works for the other 90% of devices, why keep Flash around?

Mushroom mushroom (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469970)

What do you have to do different to get, say, Strong Bad Emails or Badger Badger Badger to play on a device with no Flash Player?

Re:Mushroom mushroom (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470384)

Those are both cartoons. The software used to produce it doesn't really require Flash as an export format - though it is very low-bandwidth. The content owner can easily re-encode it. You're right, though, that in this case the original format still has a greater value.

Personally, I went through the first 77 Strong Bad Emails, and converted them and archived them on DVD (DVD Video), just because I was afraid the web site would go away before I could revisit it. Kind of nice to be able to watch them on my TV, using a DVD Player remote to navigate Compy 386.
 
Talking in terms of mere content consumption really puts you more in Apple's camp anyway. I'd love to see all corporate web sites flash-free, for one.

Monthly download caps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470508)

The software used to produce it doesn't really require Flash as an export format - though it is very low-bandwidth.

And that's my point: sending the cartoon as vectors uses far less bandwidth than rendering the cartoon to pixels and compressing those. This becomes especially important as home ISPs lower their monthly download caps and as users shift use from wired ISPs, which have large caps, to cellular ISPs, which have much smaller caps. In theory, HTML5 supports vector animation playback by scripting SVG or canvas, but I've read anecdotal reports that browsers are still much less CPU-efficient at rendering vector animation than Flash Player.

Re:Fighting till the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469762)

Didn't you heard? Apple bought Flash last week.

Re:Fighting till the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469880)

Yep-- HTML5 will solve everything, and be better in every way than flash for every possible application.
 
Why, just yesterday I made a little web application that worked seamlessly in Firefox, Safari, and all the versions of IE currently in use (including IE6) without having to build exceptions for every finicky little nuance of that particular browser. And I'm really looking forward to testing it on all mobile browsers as well. And clients really enjoy paying for a QA cycle that is six times as long as the actual build.
 
Fuck HTML5, it's like going back to 1999 again. Why does nobody get this?

Google Chrome Frame (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469896)

How would you like to make all versions of Internet Explorer for Windows behave just like Chrome? Would that shorten your QA cycle? It's possible with the "Google Chrome Frame" browser helper object that Google makes available.

Re:Fighting till the end... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470108)

a lot of the javascript/css proponents i've spoken to were quite happy using actionscript 2 but found it difficult making the transition to as3.

this is probably because a lot of the convenience functions are missing, and not everyone can make sense of OOP.

i think the reason html5 isn't getting anywhere is because it involves a lot more work for the devs. also, flash has become part of what people expect from the web - and if a product doesn't support it then they will avoid it.

Re:Fighting till the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469982)

Without iOS support...

From TFA:

Adobe said full frame rate HD video can now be displayed within AIR applications on Apple iOS devices using H.264 hardware decoding.

That sounds like some kind of iOS support to me.. though, admittedly, the article is not very clear about this point.

Re:Fighting till the end... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470176)

Flash won't die until HTML5 is:

* Complete
* Supported properly in all major browsers
* Has a high level, mature and robust RIA development API (i.e. at least Flex level which is, frankly, an easy enough goal. Certain JS frameworks are making good progress but are still far less productive (development, testing, maintenance, LOC, etc.) than Flex)

Given the history of the web, these conditions put the viability of HTML5 as a complete replacement for Flash at no sooner than 2021 -- probably even later than that.

Re:Fighting till the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470688)

html5 has been a work in progress for about ten years now, look it up.

truth is it will never be ready for primetime. just another lost cause for those that are 'hard of thinking' to whine on and on about.

i suppose it's a great way for those useless devs to sideline themselves and leave all the work for those that know what they're doing.

Re:Fighting till the end... (2)

JavaTHut (9877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470218)

which is exactly why one of the biggest improvements in AIR 3 is it's iOS support. My iOS app ( http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lickety-split/id454354262 ) is written 100% in Flash (Actionscript) using the Open Source Flash SDK ( http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Flex+SDK ). That's infinitely more open than Objective-C, and it performs great. The only thing Adobe sucks at is P.R. for letting Apple brainwash people into thinking using Apple's approach is more open than an open source sdk. Yeah it's not perfect or standards committee developed (ironically, Flash/Actionscript is exactly JavaScript 4 . If it weren't for all the JS4 politics Flash would be JS by now), but that's only if you're letting it be compared to JS. It's capabilities and performance are way closer to Native than JS.

Re:Fighting till the end... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470498)

Does the Objective-C used for iOS development not work with the GCC Objective-C backend?

Re:Fighting till the end... (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470620)

The average person doesn't care whether Adobes or Apples way is more open, they just care that it works well on their iDevice and doesn't instantly drain the battery.

Re:Fighting till the end... (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470660)

That's infinitely more open than Objective-C

What makes you say that? The Objective-C compiler (clang) is open source (UIUC, BSD-style, license). Apple's runtime is also open source (APSL), and the GNUstep project has a more portable replacement (MIT licensed). In both cases, you're using proprietary libraries (in the Flash player or Cocoa Touch0.

Apple, why? (2)

uzyn (1165803) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469672)

Why is this story tagged under Apple?

Re:Apple, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470034)

/. news for fanbois

Re:Apple, why? (1)

ChikMag777 (1337235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470226)

FTA: "Adobe said full frame rate HD video can now be displayed within AIR applications on Apple iOS devices using H.264 hardware decoding."

Re:Apple, why? (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470336)

We probably don't have a symbol for Adobe, and Apple kinda sounds the same if you mumble.

OSX Flash 10 still in Beta... (1)

keehun (1966090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469674)

Isn't OSX Flash 10 still in Beta?...

Re:OSX Flash 10 still in Beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469978)

Isn't OSX Flash 10 still in Beta?...

No?

Flash 11.5, AKA Flash CS 5.5, is at revision 11.5.1 as of a week ago; and has always been simultaneous on Mac and Windows (at least for final releases) for as long as I can remember

The current Flash Player for Mac/Win/Linux/Solaris is at 10.3.something, and has been in sync across platforms for some time now.

Opportunity, will it be wasted? (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469680)

Adobe is positioning their Flash-based platforms to be a platform for mature applications instead of widgets and applets.

I wonder if Microsoft will expose the new WinRT API to Flash or AIR?

Proxy support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470308)

Does this new flash player support using the browser's proxy settings?

Flash 10.x does not, and millions of corporate/enterprise workstations cannot view flash-based streaming videos because the norm in a corporate network is to run all internal PC's browsers thru a web proxy server to reach the outside world.

Re:Proxy support? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470640)

That isn't the norm in a corporate environment.

bias? (3, Interesting)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469706)

The launch comes at a time when the industry is shifting from Flash and embracing HTML 5 on the Web that lessens the reliance of developers on Flash. HTML5 is gaining momentum each day as tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook are supporting it.

To what extent is this true and to what extent is it bullying? I mean, "oh damn the competition just wont go away! even though it can't possibly win!". That's what those sentences sound like to me.

a.) In a capitalistic society, believe it or not, competition is great! It's one of the few things that enforces sane prices and wages, and has the benefit of not being decreed by a government regulator.
b.) Even if a technology is inferior and/or 'old' doesn't mean it's going away. Fortran, anyone?

Re:bias? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469910)

Except most sane, security, stability, and privacy conscious people want Flash to die a quick and painless death. HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser. A secure browser = secure HTML 5. No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it. Therefore, competition would be good, if Flash and HTML 5 were equal. They are not.

Re:bias? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469992)

Competition is rarely between equal parties.

Re:bias? (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469994)

HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser.

Flash runs in a separate process on Linux and I have that wrapped in Apparmor so it can't access anything other than the few files it needs to operate. If I hit Flash malware, it can't write to any file on my system that isn't specifically Flash-related, nor can it read files that contain private information.

An HTML5 exploit in Firefox means it can access pretty much anything and can certainly grab bank passwords or some other crap that I really, really do not want to happen.

Re:bias? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470080)

Good for you. However, malware tends to rely not on hitting individuals, but on hitting large groups. I very, very much doubt people are writing Flash malware to target Linux, or for that matter that you visit many sites which would expose you to malware. I trust Firefox (well, Opera in my case) to block malware much more than I trust Adobe. And plugins just add one more possibility for malware. With a browser you only have one possible vector, with Flash you get two.

Newgrounds (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470006)

HTML 5 offers better performance

If SVG animation or canvas animation offers better performance than Flash animation, then why hasn't an alternative to Newgrounds for SVG or canvas cartoons emerged?

Re:Newgrounds (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470096)

Probably because of compatibility, or rather lack thereof. IE 8 for one doesn't support SVG at all, and every other browser seems to support different parts of the specs. HTML 5 isn't finished yet.

Re:Newgrounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470206)

wow, the kool aid is really spilling out from your mouth my friend!

talk about delusional crap!!!!

Re:Newgrounds (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470368)

It's not delusional.... HTML 5 isn't finished. Several parts of the spec are still being worked out, and several are not supported in major browsers.

As an aside, what on earth does kool aid have to do with anything?

Re:Newgrounds (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470826)

Then how can flash be eliminated immediately.. answer (likely at least 4 years out before we can count out IE8). Not that I really like it, and at my current position it's not even a concerted effort for the projects I have in the pot. I've added a special class to the html tag (along with other browser classes) that includes .ieold (any version prior to 9), even if ie9 has a lot of issues wrt CSS3. Looks like IE10 may finally be caught up (so to speak). I can only hope that MS goes closer to the chrome model of seamless and frequent updates. Since IE is even more ingrained into Win8, I doubt it.

Re:bias? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470032)

Flash really only started getting good after iPhone came out. Flash lite sucked balls, and full Flash itself ran terrible on mobile devices prior to this (and even for a period after the iPhone came out). And nevermind that installing FlashBlock was essential to prevent your PC from slowing to a crawl when browsing the web.

Now we have hardware accellerated video decoding, full flash on mobile devices that actually runs half-decently, etc.

Re:bias? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470054)

Painless? Hells no, I want it to be dragged along the road for about a mile, then dipped in tar and set alight before finally being dumped over a cliff into the ocean.

Re:bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470292)

flash will carry on happily for quite some time, stage3d and the mobile platform will ensure that. on the other hand, steve jobs is probably in for quite an uncomfortable death - as the major systems of his body shut down we can only hope that he gets the send off that such a true enemy of internet freedom deserves - exquisite pain in utter abundance!

Re:bias? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470216)

The best part about html is that it is open, and as such will be implemented independently by all the major browser makers...
This is in contrast to flash, where there is generally only one implementation, making any security holes in it extremely attractive indeed. This is made even worse by the fact that this implementation is extremely slow/buggy especially on non windows platforms, wont be fixed by its vendor and cannot be fixed by anyone else due to being closed source.

Re:bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470442)

so the write once then play anywhere aspect of flash is actually a disadvantage is it...? wow, ok.

maybe you should try telling that to any developer that has more than three brain cells to rub together (at least 2 more than you)

Re:bias? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470456)

Well, at least he has brain cells. Unlike you. HTML is write once, work anywhere you can run a browser.

Re:bias? (1)

edremy (36408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470582)

The worst part about html is that it is open, and as such will be implemented independently by all the major browser makers...

This is in contrast to flash, where there is generally only one implementation, making scripts actually portable from device to device. This is made even worse by the fact that HTML implementations are being developed by a series of companies that all think they should be in charge of what HTML is, especially on non-windows platforms, resulting in incompatibilities that won't be fixed by the vendor and cannot be fixed by anyone else due to being closed source.

You forget why Flash took off- it was because it was the only thing that could actually reliably play video on multiple different OSes. Up until Flash it was a fucking nightmare of incompatible standards- anyone working in educational IT like I do remembers the horror that the simple sentence "I have a video I want to play in class" would cause.

I'd love for HTML5 to become a default standard that works on everything from my phone to my tablet to my desktop. But the folks actually making those devices have lots of incentives to break stuff, and very little to actually adhere closely to the standard. I'll believe that MS, Google, Apple, and the rest can all be one big happy family when [insert favorite very improbable event here]

Re:bias? (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470510)

HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser.

This is an utterly ignorant statement. You think just because there is no longer one implementation done by one company that its more secure to have at least 4 implementations by different companies?

No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it.

Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.

There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.

A secure browser =

I'm sorry, I made the assumption you lived in the same world as the rest of us and had some sort of understanding of how programming worked.

There is no such thing, today, as a 'secure browser'. When fantasy becomes reality, you may have a point, but until pigs fly, you're just being silly.

Re:bias? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470790)

Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.

Really? You must have access to the Flash source code. Well, what are you waiting for? Where are these controls? (And yes, I know Flash has some privacy controls now. Not my point.)

There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.

Ah, now I see. You've never actually used Flash before, especially not on Linux. Buggy, slow, crashing piece of crap is being far to generous. And no, I don't expect all the browser makes to make secure browsers. I do expect them to have different vulnerabilities, making malware harder to create, and to actually, you know, be able to fix them. Nor did I say such a thing exists. My point was that no matter how secure a browser may be, it doesn't matter if it is loading a plug-in. Two attack vectors is always worse than one.

In a capitalistic society? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470590)

Where is that? Adobe is in the USA, which is a corporate oligarchy. The only competition is to see which Corporation can buy the most Congresscriminals.

Will Adobe hire more because of this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469760)

Capitalism [breitbart.com]

vs

Socialism [gallup.com]

Re:Will Adobe hire more because of this? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469968)

Capitalism
vs
Socialism

I'd suggest a googlefight, but googlefight uses flash ...

(Actually, it's because googlefight.com is broken. It no longer returns an accurate summary of the total number of hits for each expression).

Re:Will Adobe hire more because of this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470240)

Unless googlefight.com can hire enough people and remain profitable in doing so to reduce the US unemployment rate by fifteen percentage points, I fail to see what good that will do.

Alchemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469782)

I wish they'd update Alchemy. With that and Emscripten, Flash and HTML5/JavaScript could be just another platform. (The old Alchemy still works, but it uses an old version of LLVM, which is inconvenient, and also obviously doesn't support newer Flash features.)

What the fuck is AIR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469808)

For a while, it was installed without permission every time I updated any Adobe product, so I had to manually uninstall it. They made no effort to explain it before forcing it on me.

What the fuck does it do?

Re:What the fuck is AIR? (2)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469976)

It essentially allows you to write an application in flash, but not have it anchored in the web browser.

Re:What the fuck is AIR? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470648)

Yep, the only really useful application I ever ran into for AIR was the Pandora One client because it could add controls to the notification bar and be controlled by keyboard shortcuts. Now I just use the Anesidora [google.com] Pandora extension for Chrome.

Re:What the fuck is AIR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470020)

AIR obviously provides an excuse for Adobe's marketeers to come up with acronyms that expand to stupid, redundant crap ("The Adobe Adobe Integrated Runtime Runtime").

No. It is not released! (4, Informative)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469826)

From the article:
"Flash Player 11 and AIR 3 are scheduled for release in early October. Adobe didn't give the date, but you should expect release at Adobe's annual Max conference, between 1 and 5 October."

No comment.

Re:No. It is not released! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470070)

/., where not even the submitter or the person writing the headline can be fucked with RTFA

but does it run on Linux? (1)

bobbomo (877614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469828)

Yes. "64-bit support on Linux, Mac OS and Windows ensures a seamless experience with the latest 64-bit browsers." "H.264 hardware decoding is now available for AIR applications on Apple's iOS, while Flash now works with 64-bit on Windows, Mac and Linux and in the browser."

While I want to call Flash out ... (1)

galego (110613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469876)

... on it's security-hole-riddled history, javascript in the browser (XSS) is also a favorite attack vector. But at least it is a little less black-boxish.

For security sake, maybe we should just go back to punch cards!?!?!?

Re:While I want to call Flash out ... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470002)

Ya well, you'll have to slip in a flash card in that stack someplace I'm sure.

Re:While I want to call Flash out ... (1)

dorianh49 (988940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470262)

I think Adobe will soon be slipping in presidential flashcards, as they get more and more desperate.

Less reliance on flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37469908)

On the web, sure.
I know a few massive corporations that use Flash and will continue to use flash-related tools and technologies for some corporate and behind-the-scenes applications and processes though, which have relatively little to do with the web.

Not dying, yet (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469918)

As long as content creators support Flash, it will still exist. Newgrounds [newgrounds.com] , as an example, still has a large community of flash artists and programmers, which regularly provide animations and games for free.

When these sites make the transition, Flash may die. Until then, it may be used significantly less, but it will still be there.

Shockwave Is At 11.... (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37469952)

Flash is still listed on Adobe's site as 10.x....

as of this time and date (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470160)

still Adobe Flash Player version 10.3.183.10 [adobe.com]
the Release Candidate from the labs is currently the only thing available in version 11 flavour. come to think of it
its the only thing present in an x64 flavour as almost every OS on the planet has switched to 64 bit while adobe quietly drags its heels
and rapidly advancing technologies like HTML5 step quickly past it.

how much longer before we transition from evaluating adobe flash releases in terms of 'wow thats neat' to 'no one cares.'

Flash is a resource intensive security nightmare with a parent company so detatched from customers and industry it occasionally stops
commenting entirely on the state of patches and bugfixes that in many cases are a detriment to their entire business model.

Released? (2)

timestride (1660061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470182)

This looks more like an Announcement than a Release. The bits won't be available for download until October. However, there was a new version of Flash Player 10 released today (10.3.183.10) that resolves a cross-site scripting issue.

Re:Released? (1)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470314)

Ditto what parent posters have said ... but does appear that the latest 10.x release runs on 64-bit Windoze ... FINALLY Adobe!!!

Almost out of alphabet letters for Flash 10! (1)

timestride (1660061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470268)

I know the real reason why they are announcing Flash 11 now-- they are almost out of alphabet letters for Flash 10! If you look at the "Macromed" folder (Yeah, it still refers to Macromedia even 6 years after being acquired) under System32/SysWOW64 folder you'll find the browser plugins. The version today released today (10.3.183.10) is named "FlashUtil10x_Plugin.exe" and the version before that was of course "FlashUtil10w_Plugin.exe". That only gives them two more letters to use before they have to figure out a new naming scheme. Best to go to a new version number so they can start over from the beginning of the alphabet. ::chuckle::

Flash is better than HTML5. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470378)

Without question, Flash has it's issues. However, as good as HTML5 may be I still think Flash is superior. It's relatively easy to build something robust and cross platform consistency is a non-issue. Build something in Flash and you know it's going to look identical in Windows, OSX and Linux. Wasn't there that interactive site for a band recently mentioned on Slashdot that ran only in Chrome? That's HTML5.

And performance, especially with graphics, is unquestionably superior in Flash than it is in HTML5. I've seen countless HTML5 demos, some of which impress, but most pale in comparison to what I've seen done in Flash. I have a friend who's been working on an HTML5-based 3D render and performance is an on-going issue. Of course, Flash has the advantage of inherently supporting hardware acceleration. But either way, this is one of the things that needs to be addressed whether it be with HTML5 itself or how browsers themselves operate.

Also important is how easy it is to build something in Flash. HTML5 doesn't yet have a comparable authoring environment. That said, this is a big part of what's leading to Flash's downfall. Rank amateurs can pick up Flash and create something. This has brought about a saturation of bad Flash. This is best reflected in the design industry where the perception is that Flash is a designer's tool. For years I've encountered programmers who scoff that the suggestion that they should learn Actionscript. Of course, this results in crap code, which gives rise to all the problems experienced on the web.

On the other hand, I have no love for Adobe. So from that perspective I'd like to see Flash die and I'm certainly happy there's a viable competitor out there. But I will lament the loss of Flash.

Re:Flash is better than HTML5. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470522)

Flash is a closed "standard", and the binary is only available for a couple of platforms. For example, there is no version for Linux on PPC. There are limited, old versions for some ARM Linux platforms, so it doesn't in fact look identical there. When it comes to updating these, you are at Adobe's mercy, or you can just compile the latest Firefox because it is Free software.

Re:Flash is better than HTML5. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470646)

I am runninng 10.3 on Linux ARM, so it is not totally antiqued!

Still won't die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470410)

Even if Flash is completely removed from every browser (which I don't see ever happening), Flash will still not "die".
People seem to not realize that Flash is used by many AAA game studios for the UI on their favorite games... Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Starcraft II, Mass Effect 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Prototype, Star Wars: Force Unleashed 2... These, and many others, all use Flash.

So? Still not installing it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470468)

One version works. The next, crashes like Nascar racers. Then there's the browser upgrade which, with flash, swings both directions again for stability. And flashblock, adblock, and noscript don't help the matter.

Yes, I am using linux, and frankly, don't care for flash. Oh, "it must be your dist" you might say. Nope! Running several different dists here, and it just ain't workable. "Try a previous version, or the new beta." Been through that loop more times than I can count! I now live without it natively. And if I'm REQUIRED to use flash for something, (this DOES happen), I hop to the Windows VM and use it there. And yes, this is in both proprietery and open graphics driver environments. It would be one thing if websites stuck to norms with regard to flash video implementation on the web, but that just isn't going to happen.

HTML5 can't implemented soon enough IMO.

Flash (banner ads + video) (2)

Blakflag (95052) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470600)

Of course the OP didn't bother to actually link to the real product announcement, instead just to some site slagging Flash. If any of you are under the impression that Flash is going away just because it wont be used for banner ads or video.. Just take a look at the type of 3D games that are currently being developed in Flash: http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/ [adobe.com] Tell me with a straight face that people will be doing games like that in html the near future. I just don't get the hate.. each technology has its place. Once intrusive banner ads are done in html 5 and crappy javascript code is slowing your browser down, will you start hating HTML and Javascript just as much?

Re:Flash (banner ads + video) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37470836)

Uh, I thought there was already a lot of hate for JavaScript on Slashdot. Just not as much for Flash.

Am I the only one... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37470916)

Am I really the only person who is not looking forward to HTML5 taking over in that every ad on the internet will be some sort of flashy HTML5 element that can't be easily removed without breaking the rest of the webpage?

Not that I think Flash is going anywhere soon. There will always be a big place for Flash on the internet in the foreseeable future.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?