Apple Is No Longer Bundling Flash Player With Mac OS X

http://daringfireball.net/2010/10/apple_no_longer_bundling_flash_with_mac_os_x

by pmjordan • 16 years ago

102 83 16 years ago

NathanKP3• 16 years ago

I didn't think about the aspect of Flash updates. If Flash is no longer installed updated by Apple, I will have to download and install the Flash updates myself, or count on Adobe to handle updates. (Which judging from past experience with Adobe Flash player updates in Windows, might be suboptimal.)

Ultimately I would like to go no flash, and probably could today. I don't play flash games, so I won't have a problem there. Both YouTube and Vimeo, the two video sites I use most, have an HTML 5 version, so I don't even need flash for that.

Chances are if I uninstalled Flash today all I would miss are flash ads, and that would be a good thing, especially since getting rid of Flash closes another potential security hole.

callahad• 16 years ago

Chrome actually ships with its own, integrated copy of Flash. Which, coupled with Chrome's automatic updates, should keep you nicely patched.

NathanKP3• 16 years ago

I'll have to try a performance comparison, but the native HTML 5 video only uses about 10-11% processor power on my MacBook, allowing me to run it on batteries longer. I doubt that even Chrome's integrated flash can provide that sort of performance.

iheartmemcache• 16 years ago

Quite a few sites use Flash sockets instead long-poll to maintain connections. Hypem.com is the first that comes to mind. Zed Shaw's Mongrel2 also features JSsockets [1] which uses a .swf for connection persistence as well. There's quite a few apps use Flash behind the scenes, and you won't notice it until it breaks.

[1] http://code.google.com/p/jssockets/

swombat• 16 years ago

I've had FlashBlock on for quite some time now, and I haven't noticed any apps mysteriously breaking. So at the moment I'd count that as pro-Flash FUD. (yes, I do use a lot of online apps)

jmreid2• 16 years ago

Many sites use Flash to embed fonts as well.

meelash• 16 years ago

I would strongly doubt there'll be any difference in penetration in the short-term. You may not be able to think of common use cases, or any at all, off the top of the head, but over the course of a year, chances are you'll come across some interesting website or feature on the web that requires flash. And the barrier to viewing it (installing Flash yourself) is really not that high.

If you want to test it without actually uninstalling flash, just install ClickToFlash (for Safari) and you'll see many sites even use flash for non-dynamic things like buttons.

DeusExMachina2• 16 years ago

You can install ClickToFlash to get a taste of it, so when you absolutely need to see some flash content, you can just click on it.

http://clicktoflash.com/

Actually I don't miss Flash at all except for one place: street view on Google Maps, which is done in Flash and I find it useful to take a look when I have to go in some place I don't know (it helps a lot being familiar with the surroundings once you are there).

Apart of that, I never enable Flash on other websites.

Yaggo2• 16 years ago

I would like to see clicktoflash pre-installed on Macs ;-)

pietro• 16 years ago

Maps for iOS has a native implementation of Google Street View. It's much better than the desktop version, so I don't even use Flash for that.

nexneo• 16 years ago

Apple doesn't want to spend their time on any other platform's maintenance, make sense.

yumraj• 16 years ago

OK. So, shouldn't Apple remove perl, php, ruby, apache, and every other 3rd party software that it currently ships with since I'm sure Apple doesn't want to spend time maintaining those either.

Curious mind wants to know, why just Flash and Java?

YooLi2• 16 years ago

How about because all those you list don't have user interface ties. Maybe because all those you list aren't heavily used by the majority where an outdated or exploit-prone version would matter. People who do use the examples you listed often install their own versions because the Apple versions are out of date.

grinich• 16 years ago

Apple can't fix bugs in Flash.

tptacek3• 16 years ago

To the extent that Apple depends on (say) Ruby, then they own the system ruby and have a responsibility to keep it up to date. So, for instance, when someone finds an Apache flaw, Apple has to bundle a security update for it, and may even have to alter ship dates to account for it.

To the extent that Apple can decide that it does not depend on, say, Flash, then it makes sense for them to not to ship it. If they ship it, they own it, they have to fix it. If they don't ship it, they don't own it, and the vendor has to fix it. Which, in Adobe's case, makes perfect sense; Adobe's security flaws should not be Apple's problem if they don't have to be.

bravo_sierra• 16 years ago

Look at it the other way. Why should Apple ship software it can't take responsibility for? Does Silverlight come bundled on Snow Leopard?

dasil003• 16 years ago

Darwin is a decent UNIX-like operating system underpinning OS X. The inclusion of standard open source packages like the ones you mentioned increase the utility of the system for the extremely valuable minority of OS X users who happen to be programmers with barely any far-reaching implications for the vast majority who never touch them.

codebaobab• 16 years ago

The first thing that crossed my mind was: "Apple wants to force Adobe Flash into the Mac App Store".

Now, the current App Store terms of service seem to preclude the distribution of plugins like Flash. But let's pretend, just for a minute, that they didn't. Apple would see the following advantages to having the Flash plugin on the App Store:

1) No need to worry about syncing Flash updates to OS X updates. No more risk of shipping an "outdated" version of Flash like happened with 10.6.4 back in the summer.

2) There is a visible, user friendly update stream (that is separate from the OS update stream.) This should enable users to easily always be using the latest version.

3) Apple can wield the hammer (as hard or as soft as it chooses) against bugs in the plugin--that's part of the terms of service in App Store. It makes it easy to push back on Adobe when they find bugs during the review process (even if the bugs they "find" are bugs that were known from previous releases.)

And, who knows? Now that Safari 5 has an official plugin mechanism, perhaps the App Store will open up for Safari plugins in the not too distant future.

smackfu6• 16 years ago

It really does make sense to move non Apple stuff out of the system updater, and into the app store updater. Flash and Java being the two main items.

OTOH, it would make even more sense to wait until the app store exists.

pyre• 16 years ago

Would Flash and/or Java even pass muster for admittance into the OS X AppStore?

matwood• 16 years ago

I was thinking the same thing although current app store rules would seem to disallow installing something like flash and Java. I really hope that Apple does end going this way and let 3rd parties manage their libraries in this manner.

happybuy• 16 years ago

Rightly or wrongly, I think the truth is probably closer to: "Apple wants to force Adobe Flash into the Trash"

frou_dh• 16 years ago

This is where "You need Flash to view this. Get it [here]" comes in.

Non-technical users aren't going to manually install Flash if all they're presented with is a blank space. Luckily for Abobe they only need to see the former once.

smackfu6• 16 years ago

I wish Apple would stop with these games and just do what's best for the consumer. Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today.

OTOH it would make sense to move Flash to the OS X App Store when that is released, so that Adobe could manage their own updates. We'll see if that is an option, and it would be nice if Apple had waited until the App Store existed. Instead Adobe will need to have its own updater for Flash, right when Apple is coming out with a centralized update system. How dumb is that?

irons2• 16 years ago

Unless you can explain why it made sense to include Flash last week and it doesn't today.

You may have noticed that Apple cleaned house on Wednesday. They announced the Mac app store, deprecated Java (and listed deprecated-Java as a disqualification to get into the app store), and shipped significant new hardware which offered a clean break on the software configuration, including the end of Flash as default kit.

There's no provision in the app store as currently defined to carry anything except self-contained single-package application bundles, so no, you won't see Flash or any other plugins carried there in the foreseeable future.

DougBTX• 16 years ago

> just do what's best for the consumer

Apple got caught shipping a Flash player with known security vulnerabilities, that's not good for "the consumer". They also claim that half the reported OS X crashes are due to Flash - which seem exaggerated, but if true, also bad for "the consumer".

YooLi2• 16 years ago

Honestly I don't think it's an exaggeration, even if technically I think they were talking about Safari crashes. Flash has crashed my Safari more times than I can excuse as 'these things happen'.

smackfu6• 16 years ago

And now Flash won't be included in the system updater, so now way more people are going to be running back-level versions. Bet that will really help with the crashing and security issues.

This is exactly the reason Chrome moved to shipping with Flash included, and why Firefox now checks the flash version when it starts up. Apple is going backwards on this.

jsz0• 16 years ago

The platform provider should always be responsible for installation/upkeep whenever possible. In retrospect it seems a bit odd that OSX ever included Flash in the first place. Adding that extra distribution layer may give the user the illusion that Apple is responsible for keeping Flash updated. No one wants that responsibility. Not even Adobe. As far as I can tell the only way to keep Flash updated is to check Adobe's website every so often. I didn't hear a peep from Apple or Adobe about 10.1 being released. No automatic update here.

IdeaHamster2• 16 years ago

Let me tell you a little story from the inside…

So, when you build something as big and complex as an operating system, your single biggest enemy is: change. The more things change, the more you need to test and retest to be absolutely sure that those changes didn't have any unintended side-effects. This is why, in the process of reaching a GM build, the ability for groups to change components is gradually locked down. The final lock-down is GM, and this usually happens around 1 month before the first customers see the next OS. This time is needed to "prime the channel". That is: you need to press the disks, prepare the marketing material and the packaging, do all of the final validation testing, and start shipping the software to stores.

In the case of SnowLeopard, that meant that development was done, and GM was declared, in the 3rd week of July. SnowLeopard shipped on Aug. 28th. Know what happened between those two dates?

Flash Player v10.0.32.18 ships on July 30 with critical security fixes: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-10.ht...

Remember all the fuss? No? Here's a reminder: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/snow-leopard-ships-with-v...

In particular, people were incensed that installing SnowLeopard on top of their Leopard systems that already had an updated Flash player actually reverted to the vulnerable version. Why? Because Flash was part of the OS. It was part of the install package that gets laid down fresh, instead of being part of the user installed software that gets migrated from old to new OS. And because Adobe didn't get the Flash update to Apple before GM was declared.

DeusExMachina2• 16 years ago

This is also what Gruber wrote at the time: http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/flash_snow_leopard

IdeaHamster2• 16 years ago

Gruber has good sources ;)

smackfu6• 16 years ago

If you buy Snow Leopard today, has the disc been updated with all the security updates since its release? If not, that would have the same issue, that you are vulnerable for the time between you install and when you run system update for the first time.

I don't really see how Flash is special here.

jakestein• 16 years ago

The difference as I see it is that Snow Leopard will get the security updates via Apple's Software Update program. You're on your own for updating flash player, or at best you get notified by Adobe that a new version of flash player is installed.

Apple can control or at least heavily influence the updates for Snow Leopard. It can't for flash.

alexknight• 16 years ago

Apple has historically updated shipped copies of OSX. As new point releases come up, they do update the master copy of what gets shipped to stores. Not different at all to what Microsoft does with their OS releases and service packs.

nikster4• 16 years ago

This is spot on, IdeaHamster. I think the main question Apple asked itself is "why do we ship Flash with every Mac?". The answer is that back in the day when Flash was added, Adobe was a very good partner, and Flash was cool.

These days, Adobe is turning more an more into an enemy - even holding talks with arch-enemy Microsoft. So if you asked again - why do we ship Macs with Flash - the answer would be: We shouldn't. It should just be yet another plug-in that needs to be installed.

I think the bottom line is, there are good technical reasons, and there are good political reasons to dump Flash from the OS. It's about 50/50. Adobe has some power with Flash but it's standing on pretty shaky ground - videos work just as well in HTML5 which leaves Facebook games as the one application that really matters.

pedanticfreak2• 16 years ago

The problem is not whether the latest version shipped with the installation disc. It's how quickly it got put up on Software Update. Lots of products have downloadable updates on the day it appears. Flash should have been a required update within days of Adobe releasing the new version.

There would have been no story if the headline was "Snow Leopard requires Flash update on install." I seem to remember I got my Snow Leopard late and I still had to go straight to Adobe for my update.

patrickaljord• 16 years ago

Ubuntu and just about any Gnu/Linux distribution haven't been bundling the Flash player for years, nice to see Apple doing the same.

code_duck3• 16 years ago

Neither has Microsoft. I know people are interested in anything that has to do with Apple, but I'm still attempting to determine what makes this newsworthy.

hasenj• 16 years ago

Apple is not interested in advancing "Free Software", so this has nothing to do with that.

jellicle2• 16 years ago

Look, people. This move was done because Apple totally has your best interests at heart and is absolutely not in any way any sort of anti-competitive thing, because Apple simply doesn't have any sort of Flash-competitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduia_%28software_framework%...

It was done because Apple loves you and wants to protect you, like a soft warm blanket over your head, pressing down tightly.

sacrilicious• 16 years ago

Pardon me pointing out the difference between a plug-in and a web framework. Believe you me, this is a headache, but you have the right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

jellicle2• 16 years ago

You probably ought to google "rich internet apps" to achieve a slightly greater level of understanding before commenting.

chc2• 16 years ago

Apple's Flash competitor which it is engaging in anticompetitive practices to force on people is standard HTML, CSS and JavaScript? That's not exactly anticompetitive, given that those are not proprietary Apple technologies.

Also, Apple has several more of these "Flash competitor" frameworks. There's at least SproutCore and PastryKit, and I think a few in addition to those.

brudgers• 16 years ago

Apple's Flash competitor is iOS, which normally requires fewer hardware resources, but doesn't run on anything other than Apple hardware. Among the advantages for Apple are better developer lock-in, better access to user data and stronger branding.

zmmmmm3• 16 years ago

This seems to confirm an interesting and decisive change of strategy from Apple, and totally parallels the Java decision very closely. If you put these three things together:

1) Deprecate Java on Macs

2) Deprecate Flash on Macs

3) Deprecate all non-Apple-controlled apps on Macs by introducing the store

If you put the three together it shows a strong and coordinated move to start reigning in free development on Macs and move it to a model where Apple totally controls the experience.

whyenot2• 16 years ago

Adobe and Oracle are gaining control over Java and Flash, two things that previously Apple controlled themselves. The app store isn't replacing the ability to install application on your own, it's just another option to purchase and install apps in a way that may be more familiar and user friendly for those who use Apple's phones. This seems more like Apple reducing their control over the user experience.

code_duck3• 16 years ago

In what ways did Apple control Sun or Adobe more than Oracle or... Adobe? What do you mean?

stevejohnson• 16 years ago

> 3) Deprecate all non-Apple-controlled apps on Macs by introducing the store

Seriously? Providing an additional distribution platform declares that "non-Apple-controlled" software is DEPRECATED?

Yarr.

zmmmmm3• 16 years ago

You don't think that once established, the Apple software store will quickly become the preferred way to distribute software on the Mac? Any time a platform owner gives their official blessing to 3rd party software it gives a huge plus to that software. Hence why we have all kinds of Microsoft certification etc. you can do to have your app blessed.

"Deprecated" may seem a little strong, but they are Job's own words that he used to simply describe the fact that Java will be provided by a third party:

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#releasenotes/Java/Ja...

adamesque• 16 years ago

I think, in order to have a compelling argument here, you'll also need to include:

4) Deprecate Safari on Macs

5) Deprecate Terminal.app on Macs

6) Deprecate XCode.mpkg from Mac OS install media

But you won't, because you're trying to fit facts to a theory, rather than the other way around.

wmeredith• 16 years ago

I think you're grasping, here. Apple is deprecating poor user experiences on their platform.

zmmmmm3• 16 years ago

That's exactly what I said (!)

I just don't make the assumption that all Apple's choices === good user experience.

pacomerh• 16 years ago

I really don't think it's a big deal. If people need flash they'll make sure they have it. This just throws the responsibility to the user. It's reasonable for apple to do this, but looks/sounds a little over the top.

jdavid• 16 years ago

1st, what made macs awesome is how well they target multiple platforms. having access to apple, linux and windows user on one device was awesome.

2nd, chrome and firefox will still auto download flash, so really what this does is it makes safari users act like IE users in that they won't have all of the plugins.

it seems that apple is doing this so they rapidly iterate for Mac OS (next) without vendor support. sounds like apple is getting quite before something big in the next OS.

nikster4• 16 years ago

Apple is all about rapid iteration. With the iOS, they're moving at lightning speed. Perhaps they want to achieve the same on Mac OS. Steve Jobs has called Java a "ball and a chain" years ago, so this is not too surprising. Strategically, Apple doesn't care about cross-platform technologies because per definition they don't take advantage of platform innovations. See Job's Flash-on-iOS open letter. Nobody say Apple is not consistent in their strategy and vision - in fact, I've never seen such a razor sharp focus in a company that size.

pedanticfreak2• 16 years ago

This is potentially a step backward for security. Apple had the right idea of providing Flash and Java through the System Updates mechanism. They have just historically failed to be timely with security updates.

Putting security updates in the hands of users is a recipe for no security.

cpr• 16 years ago

If Apple's serious about being anti-Flash, this is another way, over time, to reduce the overall number of copies of Flash in the world (they say there are 50M active Mac OS X users), if everyone has to download it first.

In fact, if they just drop the percentage of pre-installed Flash engines from 95% to 90% to 85% to 80%, etc., then the Flash ubiquity argument falls apart, and further hastens the decline of its influence.

(Personally, I'm all for it. I just see Flash as Adobe's cynical attempt to create an alternative (and lousy) operating system that runs on all the existing systems.)

Apple Is No Longer Bundling Flash Player With Mac OS X

Related Stories