Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Won't Macromedia Release 64-bit Flash?

Posted by Cliff on from the plenty-of-demand-but-no-supply dept.

Flashless Dancer asks: "Despite numerous online campaigns, blogs and forum postings, Macromedia has failed to release a 64 bit version of it's popular Flash Player for 64 bit architectures. Growing outcry in the Linux community recently spawned the online petition at PetitionOnline, but this seems to have fallen on deaf ears. A recent posting to Macromedia's technotes, back in September, offers this explanation and advice to users and developers who are growing increasingly concerned that users with 64 bit architectures are unable to view online content created with Flash. It explains that users must downgrade to 32 bit browsers and use the 32 bit plugin. This simply isn't a good option for most users, in fact many Linux distributions, including FC2/3/4 install 64-bit browsers with their 64-bit distributions. This seems to breathe new life into the old GplFlash Project which is now back, after some time on the back burner. Future development of GplFlash2 promises support for Flash 6/7 but remains in development for now. Open speculation in chatrooms and web forums alleges all sorts of conspiracy theories but, what I'd like to know is: What's the real difficulty here for Macromedia?"

9 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. No problem at all by Phillup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't have flash installed, and you know what?

    I've found browsing to be much more injoyable!

    Flash: mostly crap.

    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
    1. Re:No problem at all by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strongbad

      Install the flashblock extension, and you can keep from seeing any flash unless you actually want to.

      That's why.

  2. A better way to look at it by zeath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I run AMD64 Debian sid, and I consider it a boon to my web browsing experience that I no longer have to deal with Flash. I've even gone to the point where I wrote a generic letter which I've sent to a few sites where the requirement for Flash has impeded my progress. I have yet to receive anything but a generic 'thank you for your input' response, but I still consider the letter to properly address the real issue at hand - Flash's pervasiveness as a replacement, rather than augmentation, of a reliable text-based browsing experience.

  3. Simple economics by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flash player users pay $0 per copy to Macromedia. Last I checked, the Flash player is neither adware nor spyware-encumbered, so they aren't making any money there, either.

    Flash player users on 64-bit platforms are a vanishingly small percentage of Flash player users.

    If Flash is not 64-bit clean, then it will probably be reasonably expensive for Macromedia to clean it up.

    What can Macromedia expect for a return on this investment? Well, zero times 0.005 is still zero.

    1. Re:Simple economics by Dimwit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They have a 64-bit version for Solaris and SPARC.

      And they have a 32-bit version for Solaris on Intel.

      I'm positive there are more Linux 64-bit users than 32-bit Intel Solaris users. Seriously. So, I don't get it.

      --
      ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
  4. The real difficulty for Macromedia... by mnmn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is to keep up with the changes of architectures and OSes. I imagine moving flash player to x64 is tougher than moving it from Windows ME to Windows XP, since it contains multimedia codecs using at least some assembly language.

    That oughtta force them to move the core of the player to opensource so people would do most of the porting jobs for new OSes, while they just build on that code to make it a 'professional' version for selling.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  5. "Downgrade" to 32 bit browsers?! by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last time I checked, web browers were not even taking advantage of 32bit architecure. I don't see a lot of high performance 64 bit web browsers out there.

    Anyways, the question is moot as there are few HOME desktop based 64bit only solutions out there, really. None actually. All have a 32bit support mode. Why cater to a small market of 64 bit only powerhouse enterprise servers, people using these systems are not interested in browsing websites, just serving them to millions.

    If 64bit web servers were unable to serve Flash content, I am sure Macromedia would get on the ball, but I don't think the computer world is for lack of a 64 bit Flash plug-in to feed those power hunger high performance 64 bit web browsers nobody is using.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  6. Difficulty? No... by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no difficulty, read my lips: They Don't Care. You have 1991 signatures, thats less than the enrollment at some high schools. If there was a business case, i.e. if they actually made money on it, then Macromedia would do something. To appease 1991 geeks running a fringe OS on (admit it) fringe hardware? C'mon...

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  7. I know this is hard to understand.. by Suppafly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but everything from PetitionOnline falls on deaf ears. No one cares about internet petitions, it takes almost no effort to fill out an internet petition. If you want someone to take you seriously, send a fax and follow up with a certified snailmail.