Slashdot Mirror
Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware
SomeGuyNamedMike writes "I realize the thought of using Flash and Actionscript is considered beneath many Slashdotters, but here's this piece, anyway: Macromedia is receiving (and answering) a a lot of flack from several blogs over its decision to package Yahoo! Toolbar with its Flash player. Will your company develop Flash content knowing Macromedia is using its runtime as its own marketing piece?"
Everyone today is worried about the 'Spectre of Spyware' - it's not just Flash Developers or any one group. Just about any network enabled software developed today suffers that problem. The real question is do you need to question the security of any/all software that you use/develop? And the quick answer is: Yes
There's not much you can do about the way people use your tools. You can't program a hammer to only pound nails.
Berto
It is more than time for an open source Flash player...
Anyone know of any?
http://www.diaperdevil.com/
Some guy saw that Yahoo toolbar is now being bundled with Flash by default and exploded about how that might be spyware.
Yahoo toolbar isn't a spyware application. I don't like it, but it's just an add-on app from a respectable company to help fix Microsoft's broken browser.
Spyware is a very specific word. It means software that reports back to the author with data about you.
I think a more appropriate term here would be "shovelware"... software you may not care about that gets installed just for kicks. It used to mean software that was shoveled onto a CD along with the main package, just because CDs had so much space free.
What's going on here? Clearly Yahoo paid a bunch of cash to Macromedia. What's the matter, Yahoo? Can't get enough people to install your software on its own merits? Have to resort to tricking people into installing your software? That's the mark of a bad product. A good product people will seek out. A bad product has to be foisted upon an unsuspecting public.
Isn't that like asking: "Will your company develop content for Firefox knowing that the Mozilla Foundation is using it as its own marketing piece?"
I don't care that Mozilla includes various related links with the browser, nor do I care that Macromedia includes other stuff either. If there's a business case for using Flash, my company will use it. Man, if people objected because of co-marketing deals, then nobody would ever develop for Windows based upon the desktop shortcuts that come with it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
OK, I know this is /., the home of open source zealots etc. etc., but I'm curious:
Why the Flash hatred?
Was there a court battle that hurt open source involving Flash somewhere? Or is it just because it's not an open source standard?
This is a legit question, not a troll. Thus I posted with my username, not as an AC.
And for the record, I do use WinXP, MS Office and other closed source products. I do however support open source in some ways. Example: I use Firefox, and will never look back to MSIE.
I didn't realize that anything called "Turd Head" or a couple other bloggers constituted "a lot" or anything credible for that matter. Is there another news source for the "issue" the parent raised?
As an ex Flash using developer, the advantage Flash has over Java is the IDE. (Not that the Flash Producing program is really an IDE)
With flash you can rapidly develop graphics and then plug in a small amount of code to make it do "clever things". This means a designer (of the graphic type) can build games etc.
On the flip side with Java you have to actually know how to code, so most applets are made by coders not designers.
What does this lead to? Well most of the stuff flash is used for is pretty with not too much coding, like most of the Web. While the Java stuff may have lots of features, but is kinda ugly.
Basically Java could replace Flash, but it would need someone to build an IDE for designers to use before it was popular and started to generate content to match that of Flashes.
As it stands Flash is a graphics format with scripting, while Java is a fully fledged programming language with the ability to do graphics in a web browser. If someone came up with the JavaFlash graphic tool / ide then we would be onto a winner.
My, that's a useful comment.
Look, I work for Macromedia, so I'm hardly a disinterested observer, but saying "Flash blows" (or "technology X blows", for that matter) is hardly what I'd call a useful contribution to this discussion.
Dislike Flash because it's not open-source and thus is unacceptable to your personal philosophy? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it isn't available for your platform of choice (eg, 64-bit Linux)? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it (like every other web technology) can be misused to make really annoying ads? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because of some other, specific reason? Fine, that's a point you should make.
But for all the folks out there who simply have juvenile comments on the order of "Flash sucks"... well, I guess I just don't understand what you think you're contributing to the topic.
(For the record: yeah, I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, to block annoying ads of all sorts.)
So are they including both the IE and the Firefox toolbar? If they dont distribute it with the FireFox plugin, whats the big deal?
Flash is a platform. If you develop for that platform, you must convince users to download that platform.
Part of convincing your users to download that platform is being able to let them feel like there's no ill effects. This is why web plugins have essentially disappeared, people are afraid or too lazy to install all that shit.
Now Macromedia is selling the ability to get your app bundled with their platform. And if you're a developer for their platform, you now run the risk of getting upset emails from people who don't quite understand what a software installation process entails and just hitting "ok" over and over while installing going "I INSTALLED THE FLASHY THINGY YOU WANTED AND NOW THERE'S THIS WIERD TOOLBAR THING ON MY BROWSER!! WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COMPUTER??"
This is not so good from the developer's perspective, and it raises valid questions about the future reliability of Macromedia; if they're bundling Yahoo now, what will they be bundling in 4 years?
Anyone else remember when the Flash player was so tiny that it could fit in a java applet, and if you loaded most Flash pages without having the plugin installed, it did?
I recently installed a new Flash player and when I had to fire up IE for a compatibility test - there was the dang Yahoo Toolbar. I was pretty distracted when I did the install and Macromedia had, I repeat HAD, a very high trust factor with me. I don't use IE very often so I didn't notice it for a while. I thought to myself "that's very short sighted thinking Macromedia." They then moved from the high trust level to the do not trust level.
Thalasar
Maybe it's not a constructive comment, but it gives a taste of the public (or at least geek) opinion.
I'm the owner of a company developing a (sucessful) product to manage content on a website (A CMS). - This product is heavy on JavaScript usage, and laso uses ActiveX for several things. - We've been thinking a lot about several things who would be easier and faster to develop in Flash rather than DHTML, but how can I professionally tell people to download a RUNTIME for viewing content, when it comes bundled with third party software, that I myself disapprove of, and find annoying? - The answer is; I can't.
I use Windows, and I have Flash installed myself - This is not enough for me to uninstall it, but this just seem like shady business practice, and depending on the reaction from Macromedia on this issue I can't see myself upgrading it, or recommend others to upgrade it.
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
Flash itself as a technology doesn't blow - however, the only sites I've seen that used it (or say, in 99% of cases) use it either for highly annoying ads, very annoying "splash" page when you get tho their websites, or bad and non-accessible site nav (usually with no real structure and nothing to fall back to if flash plasyer isn't installed).
:P )
There might be good uses for it, but I've hardly ever seen that (ok, I'll give you badger badger
So along with adblock (if not even BEFORE it) I load flashblock.
Oh, and be sure I'm not going to use this (flash) instead of XForms (or whatever else) either.
///<sig
I work for a US government agency. We will not use flash under any circumstances because it is not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. No big whoop, you might think, until you start to imagine what it really would be like to be blind. As a blind person, the internet holds great potential to expand the information blind people can expose themselves to, but everytime their parsers hit crazy crap like a flash site, it's basically a brick wall.
So, for their sake, let's abandon Flash, once and for all. If not, let's use intelligent coding that routes blind people's browsers around Flash and to the ASCII content they seek.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
As someone has already mentioned Flash is used extensively on educational websites. I realize that the average geek guy does not find flash extremely useful in daily life unless your into Homestar Runner, but it is incredibly useful in the educational arena, making websites for children much more interactive and useful. (This is my biggest issue with Linux: very few useful, well-designed children's applications.)
I am disappointed to find that Macromedia is taking this route now that they have become a big name. I prefer to download only what I request without having to deal with "extras", spyware or not. I personally won't mind as long as they tell you before hand and give an chance to opt out.
My other concern is that this may make my job harder when it comes to cleaning up other people's computers. Its bad enough trying to convince people that they shouldn't go downloading every free screensaver they like but to have to explain to them where even more random bits of software come from, sigh.
In the end I don't hold it against Macromedia, they do have the right to make their money somewhere (yes, I realize that the prices for the developement software is pretty high.) I just wish they would be more straight forward about things, advertising it on their site like Download.com does instead of just bundling it with their software.
Companies will continue using flash until not a single user looks at a lame flash intro and says "cool"
Bottles.
I must be in the minority that actually like Flash. It's very effective for adding interactivity and animation to the web. Yes, it's used for lots of ads, but it's also used for lots of really cool (and even useful) sites.
But the idea that it would come bundled with other software is hideous, and the reasons should be obvious. This is the deal breaker for me and many others, I'm sure. It doesn't matter what software is bundled with Flash, the bundling itself is just wrong, in principle. And the timing of this decision couldn't possibly be worse. Google, for example, is showing more and more that rich, interactive sites can be developed without Flash. Turning Flash into mere packaging for third-party software will shift people in droves to javascript/XML alternatives (and whatever else comes along).
I remember the days when RealPlayer used to be really cool... Look at it now -- it's nothing more than packaging for advertisements. It's bad business, plain and simple.
You forgot E.
E) You can't tell it to NOT play sounds. God damn.
Flash is a great web design tool. All of these geeks (yes, YOU!) just say it sucks because that's the "geek" thing to say. It would be uncool in the computer geek world to actually like technology that non-geek people like.
Personally, I've nothing against it but I find the way it's typically used to be highly irritating.
Don't take it personally.
//Troll me up, Scotty
Macromedia has been producing some amazing technology lately. A friend showed me some of the features in the new ColdFusion and I was blown away.
The whole anti-Flash thing here is not real. It's mostly all talk from a bunch of low self-esteem geeks trying to be cool for once.
Flash sucks until the new Strongbad email comes out.
MPAA sucks until the next LoTR comes out.
Windows and Blizzard suck until the next Warcraft comes out.
Big business sucks until it allows for open source use of a few throw away patents
Lucas sucks, but guess who will be first in line the May?
There is very little legitimate discussion here. It's mostly just cliche posts and bitching for the sake of bitching.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
I work for a company that thrives on making flash websites for Fortune 500 clients, and I promise you that you're 100% wrong. The annoying flash movies you speak of are made by poor flash designers and developers. Look at some of the great sites for Ford, for Bacardi, and you'll see that Flash is an amazing application when used properly.
Please provide links to good Flash websites.
I agree that there are some interesting uses of Flash, but Flash sites discourage visiting the same web site many times, because even interesting moving pictures become boring after someone has watched them maybe 3 times.
That's why Google is so successful. The company has a policy of not annoying people.
I don't think even having a process to 'disable' the toolbar in an the interface is remotely acceptable, let alone having to decide to disable it when people install the player themselves.
As developers and corporate end-users, we can not accept something integrated with a web site to suddenly acquire an unnecessary UI element to join the browser screen, especially in something where the UI was supposed to be clean and clear. You will have single handedly broken a look, feel and usability factor that was designed for a client, and the client might just well come to me asking why it's broken. I'll have to spend time and money to fix it. In my mind and possibly reality Macromedia's going to get the bill for any hours of work I spend doing that, as well as the time spend calming down my client.
This opens up the door for advertising to be sent, interrupting or preceding what is supposed to be a design, presentation, logo or splash...Why? Simply because I (or my client) was told to trust something Macromedia decided to add on for those unsuspecting souls who download the new player.
The moment a board member of an organization I'm helping decides to call me in a rage over the Yahoo toolbar showing up in something that's NOT supposed to have any other UI add-ons, I will heavily consider finding a way to sue Macromedia for damages. This is a 'design and programming environment', not Macromedia's or Yahoo's excuse (or their advertising clients excuse) for a billboard. I don't want Yahoo's garbage interrupting my work, or putting it at risk in any way, which is a huge possibility considering a newly-downloaded component of the previously installed toolbar (even it it doesnt contain anything harmful right away) could contain yet another add-on from yet another company I didn't expect to have to deal with before.
They need to change this path before this gets exponentially worse. Take the Yahoo toolbar out permanently, and let Yahoo develop an alternative Flash player if they want one of their own with a toolbar in it so badly.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
A popular American dictionary allows the variant spelling; a superior British dictionary exposes your ignorance by explaining what a flack is. In case you don't have a subsscription to the latter (you could do with one):
A blow, slap, or stroke.
Historical use:
1823 MOOR Suffolk Words, Flack, a blow. a1825 FORBY Voc. E. Anglia, Flack, a blow, particularly with something loose and pliant.
Furthermore I agree with the other reply - 'receiving flak' (and the more British 'coming in for [a lot of] flak') is not leetspeak, it's a phrase used often in the British media.
I very much like the graphic design in the first link: http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/index.asp
However, there were five shortcomings:
On my high-speed DSL connection, I got only the word "loading..." for only a few seconds, but it seemed like a long time. Ford must be very arrogant indeed to believe that this does not annoy people with dial-up connections.
Second, you get the option "Low Speed Non-Flash" only after you have loaded the Flash page. That makes me realize why I don't like the average Flash enthusiasts web designer. They aren't very intelligent, and they assume I'm not very intelligent.
Third, Flash breaks tabbled browsers!!! When I right click on a Flash ad, I don't get the normal menu. My normal way of shopping is to load several pages and flip between them on demand. Macromedia thinks I should not be able to do this.
Fourth, the site uses blind links. I don't know what will happen until I click.
Fifth, after something is clicked on the main page, the connection is kept alive, as is shown by the message "Transferring data from www.fordvehicles.com..." which remains there forever and can't be made to go away by hitting the Escape key.
If there is something that cannot be done in standard HTML, standard HTML should be improved. Flash has had perhaps 38 serious security vulnerabilities. It is not good to introduce an entirely new, essentially proprietary technology.
I don't want an interesting interface, I want one that works. That's exactly the distinction 90% of Flash developers don't understand. If you do then good, Flash can be used well, but don't kid yourself that you're the norm.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yea! Let's stop all Technical development That does not cater to the Blind, or the deaf, or the handicapped. If it can't serve their purpose too, then damn it, everyone should have to do without it.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
it ended up top of all the search engines for the site's name.
Multimed,
This is because your domain is one of the biggest weights in google rankings for a given search term. If you search for 'cat hats' a site like 'www.catshats.com' will be near the top even though it doesn't even mention cat hats within the entire site. However, a site that contains all kinds of descriptions and references to cat hats will rank higher. In the world of Search Engine Optimization, Flash is a black hole, like the grandparent poster claims. Sure, a search for your domain name will return your site, but try a search for any of the text presented in your flash-delivered content. Your site won't be anywhere in the results.
For further insight on this topic, I recommend the O'Reilly book, Google Hacks.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!