Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Portables (Apple) Portables Software Apple

Want Flash Player On a MacBook Air? Download It Yourself 353

Posted by timothy
from the how-can-I-download-a-computer dept.
AmiMoJo writes "MacBook Airs are no longer shipping with Flash. Apple spokesperson Bill Evans said: 'We're happy to continue to support Flash on the Mac, and the best way for users to always have the most up to date and secure version is to download it directly from Adobe.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Want Flash Player On a MacBook Air? Download It Yourself

Comments Filter:
  • Lies. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Entropius (188861) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:46AM (#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. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dyinobal (1427207) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:47AM (#34003876)
      Steve would never lie to me! Shut your filthy mouth unbeliever!
      • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Informative)

        by tysonedwards (969693) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:19AM (#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. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WankersRevenge (452399) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @12:16PM (#34004544)

        I will say in all my years in professional development, I have only met one legitimate Mac fan boy and this was in the past three months. Maybe they're more prevalent on messageboards or hang out in the Apple store, but the stereotype (in my experience) is far different than the normal mac user.

        The funny thing about this guy ... we were all talking about the iPhone 4 fiasco and the people around started to pile it on. So he turns to me with a beseeching look because I was the only other mac user in the group. I was like, "yeah, these guys are right. Apple has made some boneheaded moves." and he was crushed. He just couldn't understand how another mac user could abandon him. I tried to tell him that I prefer unix and that the mac is a marriage of convenience for me since I have yet to find a linux distro that scratches an itch for me, but he didn't really pay attention to my arguments.

        • Re:Lies. (Score:4, Informative)

          by bsDaemon (87307) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @12:32PM (#34004646)

          If it were not for OS X, I would not use a Mac. All the style and design is nice, but if I were on MacOS 7 or MacOS 8, all the shiny in the world wouldn't help. Or maybe I'd use A/UX. I don't know. OS X gives me all the parts of UNIX I need, all the parts of NeXT I want, and the ability to do "normal user stuff" as well, without having to go out of my way.

          I, too, have never met a Mac fanboy stereotype either, just a lot of Unix admins who don't want to have to work when they're not at work.

    • by klashn (1323433)
      Yes, exactly... Apple really does have a vendetta against Adobe. HTML5 is coming
      • HTML5 is coming

        The end of the universe is also coming... eventually. But doesn't mean I'm going to start preparing for it just yet.

    • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Space cowboy (13680) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:52AM (#34003912) Journal
      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
      • If you install google chrome, it has it's own built-in flash player in case you need flash for some reason.
      • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bonch (38532) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @02:31PM (#34005396)

        Flash for the Mac is so terrible that an Adobe evangelist actually recommended using a Flash blocker in response to people's complaints about its instability. I'm not sure if Slashdotters criticizing Apple for antagonizing Adobe are aware of how slow and buggy the non-Windows version of the plugin is. Apple is eager to replace its functionality with open web standards. Adobe is so deluded that it accused Apple of being closed and of Flash being open simply because it's a commonly-installed plugin.

        Here's a John Gruber article [daringfireball.net] explaining the situation between Apple and Flash better.

    • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:59AM (#34003954) Journal

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

      • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Americano (920576) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:04AM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by udippel (562132)

        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?

        • by Americano (920576)

          Please explain how this is not "downloading the latest package yourself and installing it yourself?"

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

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            whooo never used a modern linux, have you? It's 'automagical' (god, I hate that word) because the distro pulls a version of flash into the repositories of said distro and then users _don't_ have to go to a website, but just install flash using the tools with which they install all other software - a package manager. It's explicitly NOT the latest version from the website of the developer. No installer made by the developer has to be run manually.

            Also, with some distro's, you can now just tick a box during i

      • by jonbryce (703250)

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by pckl300 (1525891)

        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.

        • by jo_ham (604554)

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

        • No, they are taken the burden off. This way, you have

          1) less security holes on the default install,
          2) no need to install flashblock

        • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bonch (38532) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @03:06PM (#34005606)

          I don't know if you're aware of the Flash experience on the Mac. Flash blockers on the Mac are very common because of how slow and buggy the non-Windows version of the Flash plugin is. When Safari was released to support external process plugins, it was mentioned that the #1 cause of crashes in OS X according to their crash reporter was plugins. They didn't mention it by name, but everyone knew they were talking about Flash. It's notorious for being a piece of shit.

          Adobe has long been slow to update their core Mac applications, first for OS X and then for Cocoa. Only after Apple deprecated Carbon and cancelled the 64-bit version of it did Adobe finally update Photoshop to use Cocoa, almost a decade after OS X was first released. When a Snow Leopard update shipped with an older version of Flash than what was available because a newer version came out during their update cycle, people shit on Apple. Apple was doing Adobe a favor by shipping Flash with every Mac, but now that they're trying to push open standards like HTML5, and security issues have become a problem in Flash, why should they when a user who wants Flash can get the latest version directly from Adobe like they already do on Windows?

      • 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

        • by Americano (920576)

          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.

      • FUD. You can easily install flash and reader (and keep them updated) through the official "partner" repositories. sudo apt-get install flashplugin-installer No needs to go on Adobe website.
    • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dimeglio (456244)

        Adobe just released a HTML5 player as well. Surely, this means Flash's future will no longer be based on ActionScript but HTML5. Consider it the new platform and with a nice framework, it might just be a win for Adobe.

    • Re:Lies. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:11AM (#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. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PrimeWaveZ (513534) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:12AM (#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.

      • Also, it's worth noting that Apple is pulling 3rd party applications from their default OS install right before launching an app store for 3rd party software that will have an easy installation and update mechanisms.

    • by Aqua OS X (458522)

      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.

    • by Compaqt (1758360) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:30AM (#34004230) Homepage

      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.

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Teckla (630646)

      It has nothing to do with the latest version -- Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update when the machine is first connected to the internet.

      Are you sure about that?

      I bet one of the first things owners of new Macs do is setup networking and immediately get on the Internet and browse around.

      That scenario leaves users vulnerable to Flash exploits if the version of Flash that shipped with the OS was out-of-date (which is likely). Apple could add special code that doesn't allow Flash applets to run until Flash checks for updates, but why should that burden be placed on Apple?

      In addition, given all the recent Flash exploits, I think Apple is making t

    • What is the point of this topic? Windows, Linux or any apple OS, none of these come with Flash pre-installed. So where is the news here? Is this another post by Steve trying to stir up the Adobe vs Mac debate in a desperate need for attention and more free publicity? Mr Jobs seems to be fast becoming the Paris Hilton of computing.
  • So? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:48AM (#34003888)

    So what? Just like windows, Linux ...

    • They also just did this with Java. And they'll have an app store for Macintosh soon too. Who wants to bet that both Flash and Java will not get approved in the app-store, while at the same time the app-store will be made to look like the only way to install applications on the Macintosh of the future?

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Yvan256 (722131) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:12AM (#34004060) Homepage Journal

        One good reason would be that once everyone uses Apple's tools to write software for the Mac, they won't need to support a specific processor type. It would enable them to switch CPU architectures once again and do the jump to ARM, perhaps. Remember, that's why they "told" people to use XCode a few months before they switched to Intel. XCode has a simple "Universal Binary" checkbox which produces a PowerPC+x86 application. The next one could produce x86+ARM code before dropping x86 support altogether.

        The computing-power-to-watt ratio of ARM is much better than x86, Apple already has their own custom A4 CPU (I imagine 16-cores+ ARM CPUs for laptops and desktops), I guess their own custom ARM CPUs cost less than what Intel is charging them (per computing power units) and it would make it much simpler to write software that works on all Apple hardware in one step if the desktops and laptops switched to ARM too.

        As for the "Mac of the future", I see the general public using that model of computing while coders will still get their usual environment (you choose when first setting up the Mac). Otherwise how could we code for all the hardware?

        • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Americano (920576) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:19AM (#34004122)

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

        • by yincrash (854885)
          Both Java and Flash apps are not compiled for specific processor types. They are also "Universal Binaries" in that they are interpreted bytecode.
      • Using Flash to create Mac applications is a stupid idea anyway. They look non-native as soon as you launch them. As a trivial example, all of the text looks wrong. Everything that uses the Mac text APIs (Cocoa or Core Text) has sub-pixel antialiasing. Anything in Flash has full-pixel antialiasing, so it looks blurry. The text layout is also subtly different, so even with the same fonts it's slightly jarring when you try to read it because the letter spacings are off from what you are used to. And that
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:49AM (#34003892) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by martas (1439879)

      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??

      • by udippel (562132)

        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.

      • by jo_ham (604554)

        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!

    • by dimeglio (456244) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:19AM (#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.

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.

        • by slick7 (1703596)

          I blame the Sumerians for inventing the abacus.

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by paramour (110003)

        AFAIK Apple doesn't have a bad rep for not supporting Flash on the iPhone. It's Xerox who has all the blame since Macs and all Apple's products are really copied from Xerox systems. They didn't support Flash either. Also Microsoft Windows is really a DEC VMS system so blame Digital if you have problems with Windows.

        For those that don't know, David Cutler, who designed VMS while at DEC, went on to Microsoft where he designed Windows NT. Now, although Mr. Cutler attributes it to coincidence, W N T = V+1 M+1 S+1

        Not unlike how it happens that HAL of HAL 9000 fame happens to be I-1 B-1 M-1.

    • by MogNuts (97512)

      I say get rid of all complex applications on the web entirely.

      I love the fact that in this day and age, web apps (HTML5, flash, etc) give the seamless auto updating features and zero install. They've spoiled us. However, I think we've forgotten one thing. That a desktop program can be leaps and bounds faster and more featureful. And the landscape has changed now so that desktop programs don't have the same cumbersome pitfalls they used to.

      Example: I use a web interface for email, like many others. I love th

    • by jareth-0205 (525594) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:56AM (#34004432) Homepage

      No matter what they do, people will complain.

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

    • Oh, but users will not complain this way? Broken by design. "My Mac won't work with website XYZ but everybody else's computer works fine. Fix it NOW." The user doesn't care who to "blame." He just bought a computer. Computers are supposed to browse the internet. He can't browse the internet.

      And yes, from this point of view, linux is broken by design, too. You want to know why it's not popular on the desktop YET?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I give you credit for the false...trichotomy, but the preferred approach would be to ship an up-to-date version on a system that doesn't hang when it runs.

      Not saying Apple should/shouldn't do that, but you're being a tad dishonest in your phrasing of the options.

      It would also be somewhat disingenuous to consider any Apple vs. Flash decision in a vacuum. Make no mistake, this is a war for control and power over the mobile web. Flash on Mac is collateral damage.

      • by Yvan256 (722131) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @02:03PM (#34005214) Homepage Journal

        Apple can't ship an up-to-date version of Flash. Adobe hasn't made an auto-update tool, and Apple has their computers ready to run out of the box. Once it leaves the factory, no matter what, at one point the installed Flash version is going to become outdated before the computer is even sold. Why should Apple have to carry the burden of having to install and update software from other companies?

        When users have to go to Adobe's website to install Flash, they will associate Flash with Adobe instead of Apple. So if they have Flash problems they will stop pointing at Apple as if it's their fault that Flash sucks.

        It will also help lower the supposed "Flash installed base" percentage. I don't know how they test this because I'm personally tired of hearing that "99.9% of users have Flash" when Flash sucks so bad on Mac OS X and Linux and when so many people disable or even delete Flash from their system. I even know someone who deleted Flash from his Windows 7 computer because it kept crashing his system.

        Another point is that when security lists are made for all operating systems they include software from the regular installation. If Apple drops Java and Flash they'll cut a huge percentage of security holes from their list which, frankly, is in Apple's best interest.

        As for power over the mobile Web, this isn't 1995 anymore. The mobile Web is the regular Web, if you see any difference then you're not coding using Web standards. Flash will disappear just like Shockwave disappeared. It's just a question of time.

  • It just works... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OOSCARR (826638) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:50AM (#34003898) Homepage Journal
    ...out of the box http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAwtBa2C4ts [youtube.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Rumor has it that the new Mac OS App Store forbids relying on optionally-installed frameworks. If Java and now Flash are no longer distributed as a part of the OS then they are no longer eligible to be used for apps. How long until Mac OS users find themselves in that same "walled garden"?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Americano (920576)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

        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.

        • by Americano (920576)

          Yes, ive seen the guidelines. Three things:

          1) Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle;

          2) Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications? This is the Mac OS App Store we're talking about, after all.

          3) Nothing precludes you from installing java, flash, and your own app via means other than the app store. If you want to work outside the guidelines, then you lose a distribution channel, and that is all.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

            Yes, ive seen the guidelines

            Huh? If you had seen the guidelines then why did you accuse the Anonymous Coward of "making shit up" about the optionally-installed frameworks?

            Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle

            Impractical for Java, but possible for Flash. It does dissuade developers from going down that path though. And Apple have a history of changing the rules for their app stores. I wouldn't put it past them to put a blanket ban on any Flash application in the future.

            Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications?

            I have seen it used for games and installers for some Windows software. I don't do gaming on the Mac, so

      • 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

    • Java and Flash can still be used in apps, just not apps that live in the App Store.

      It probably does make good business sense to make an app store for OS X, since the majority of its users are casual. The 70/30 profit split gives Apple more (undeserved) revenue, and also gives them control over what's most visible--we know how much Apple loves control.

      I don't think OS X will end up like iOS, though. The iPhone and iPad are really more like appliances or toys than general-purpose computers. Like a game sys

  • What's new? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @10:52AM (#34003914) Journal

    Windows doesn't include it either.

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

    • 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.
    • by jfengel (409917)

      Windows itself doesn't, but a great many Windows computers do. Along with a great variety of other crapware that doesn't come with a clean Windows install. It's part of what drives down the cost on those mass-market machines: they get paid to give you demos/trials/pre-installed services. Ads, in other words, from the moment you get it out of the box.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This has been my thought during all of these discussions, but there is a difference. Apple is a hardware company. They sell computers that are supposed to have everything that *most* users need out of the box (they even claim this). Most users need flash. Windows is not a piece of hardware. It is a single piece of software (with many included pieces of software, but you wouldn't exactly complain if they unbundled some of them). Hardware companies who sell computers with Windows on them almost always include

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jo_ham (604554)

        So, "one rule for me, another rule for everyone else" is what that boils down to.

        If MS or various Linux distros are not expected to roll their own Flash package and keep it up to date, why should Apple be expected to?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jugalator (259273)

        I'm not sure how hardware comes into play here.

        Windows and Linux desktop distros are both intended to be fairly complete software packages for the desktop, and Flash is software, not hardware.

        BUT... I'm not saying this in defense of Apple. I'm saying it in defense of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux. I'm saying it because it doesn't make sense to ship Flash versions with known security vulnerabilities on DVD-ROM's that have to be patched as soon as they're installed.

        Nah, then it's better to not ship anything at

  • 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

  • Nothing Happened! News at eleven...

  • Good riddance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Sunday October 24, 2010 @11:21AM (#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.

  • 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

  • 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?
  • by zmollusc (763634)

    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?

  • 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.

You will lose an important disk file.

Working...