Slashdot Mirror
Want Flash Player On a MacBook Air? Download It Yourself
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.'"
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.
So what? Just like windows, Linux ...
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.
...out of the box http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAwtBa2C4ts
Every time Apple says something like this, I get the uneasy feeling of working with a slick-haired businessman who promises that they've got nothing bad planned for the future, but then fuck you in the ass with Perry Saturn's mop.
preinstalled on your machine.
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"?
Windows doesn't include it either.
Maybe some Linux distros (?), but in that case, it would be pretty ironic.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
And anything else that is programmable and can run applications. Java and Flash can run anything, and that would allow Apple users to easily execute something without getting it from an Apple-controllable app-store! First they did this only to the iPhone, iPad and such, but now they're extending it to their real computers as well. Apple wants to diminish anything programmable. If they could eliminate Java and Flash completely, they would.
Why is this news? D:
What is the big deal? My windows box or my linux box came with flash pre-installed. So...
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 some demo machines have MS Office installed on it but you don't hear about confusion from buyers when they find out they need to buy Office separately although I'm sure it happens sometimes.
I don't see the fuss on this issue. There's a plugin out there and it's easy to install, it makes sense for Apple to make Flash opt-in rather than opt-out.
Me, I've installed flash on my Mac and use Firefox and Safari Flash free and I open up Google Chrome (that has its own built in flash plugin) whenever I need flash.
Why don't I use a flash blocker? Because if you remove flash entirely then many sites will display alternative content where the flash used to be rather than an annoying click to play box.
Nothing Happened! News at eleven...
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
So every app that is downloaded from the App store is guaranteed to run on an out of the box mac or a clean install of the OS and this is a bad thing?
Maybe you missed the part where this was about Mac os x, and not ios?
I didn't realize the MacBook Air is part of the iPhone line. Thanks for clearing that up.
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.
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 system, the company tightly controls what gets released on it. OS X on the other hand is a fully-functional operating system, and a damn fine one at that. There is enough of a market that uses it for more than web surfing that Apple can't completely close the OS without losing a significant user base. I have no doubt that they'd love to do it if they could--it's the control thing again--but I am confident that they won't.
Your brain is not a computer.
Apple is such a.... company.. ungh *shudders*
So every app that is downloaded from the App store is guaranteed to run on an out of the box mac or a clean install of the OS and this is a bad thing?
Their app store devs should figure out dependencies.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
Apple, Java, and the App Store . 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 yourself.
They did. It's dependent on a vanilla install of OS X.
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 small thing in defense of not shipping Flash. To be fail Apple should also ship Silverlight. While in such widespread use, every person who watches netflix on Mac needs it. It seems silly to give Flash preferential treatment. The only reason it Apple did so wsa becasuse Apples Ads at one time were flash heavy. Now they aren't.
Frnakly the only useful places I need flash is Google stocks and the fashion sites. Otherwise Flash has become increasingly lame afer a couple years of usefulness.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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 might or might not introduce instability. There will also always be third party drivers and helper applications distributed outside of the app store as well.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
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?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Hard to tell since its just an image, but is there any attempt on the part of the os to inform you that the missing plugin is actually flash? It doesn't appear to be that way from the image and he claims that it doesn't as well. Windows will tell you that you don't have flash installed and give you the option to go to the adobe site. Hmmm, so Macs are easier to use?
So every app that is downloaded from the App store is guaranteed to run on an out of the box mac or a clean install of the OS and this is a bad thing?
That is not the reason for doing this, because until the recent policy changes to Java and Flash on the Mac, applications written using either of those technologies would have worked on a clean install of the OS. If Apple were so worried about it then they didn't need to remove them from the base install.
The real reason is to remove cross platform programs from the App Store. This is helpful for two reasons. It keeps a consistent user interface for applications on the App Store and it differentiates the programs on the Mac compared to other platforms. If most of the programs were just Linux ports then why not just use Linux on cheaper hardware. Apple want to lock both users and developers into their platform.
In the past, a company who wanted to get that sort of lock-in had to embrace, extend and extinguish. Now they just funnel the applications through their distribution method to have control over what can be run on their platforms.
iOS =/= OS X
Willfull ignorance or just plain stupidity?
Who knows in an Apple Bash Comment!? It's a lottery!
You might still be allowed to include your interpreter in your bundle. This is commonly used for Python applications. Sounds wasteful, though.
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.
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.
i can haz insecure cpu-hogging plug in too? K Tks Adobe
i thought iOs ran the mach kernel, and had a similar user-land to that of OSX....
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and it swims like a duck....
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
So the app store will be filled with high quality apps designed for the exclusively for the mac and this bad how? Cross part form apps are a joke. There is no reason any app should be cross platform anymore. Every app should be designed for the platform it's running on. I was going to buy some homebrewing software and I looked at the selection.
Beertools Pro cross platform QT app non native interface.
Beer Alchemy Native Cocoa app. Uses all native user interface elements and Cocoa technologies.
Strange Brew Java app. Slow doesn't use the native interface.
Guess which one I paid money for? Why as a user would I care about cross platform? I use one computer.
Cross platform is just developer speak for I'm lazy.
What is really needed is standard formats. For instance there should be a standard document format. Then users could choose any application they wanted to view or modify that document. Instead of what we have now where you make a Word doc, an OpenOffice doc, or an iWork doc where each program is incompatible with the others.
I thought Ubuntu had the same kernel as Red Hat.
They must be identical right? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
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?
I seem to recall Apple getting a lot of flack over the fact that Snow Leopard shipped with an out of date version of Flash. Now they're getting crap for not shipping Flash and encouraging people to download the latest version themselves.
Pick a complaint already.
This space for rent...
It's the logical next step. It appears that Apple are bringing Mac OS in line with the iPhone and iPad. I think they're closing down the Mac OS. Notice that Steve "The Prophet" Jobs was nibbling at Google about Open-ness. I guess this is the next step. Steve "The Prophet" Jobs is redefining "open-ness" to mean what he wants it to mean. And that means no third party frameworks. Neat, hey?
This is my first and last Apple machine. Well played, Steve.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Sorry to be so blunt, but wtf is the big deal if I have to download it myself? As a SysAdmin, I actually much prefer that systems don't come with Flash pre-installed. First off it is a security hazard; it seems like the Windows version has an update every other week. Secondly, there are absolutely scenarios where I wouldn't want Flash on my system - this saves me the step of disabling it before locking down the system and deploying it. Third, if you install Windows XP *gasp* you have to go download the latest version of Flash. I haven't bothered to check to see if this is the case with Windows 7, so I won't comment on that. I much prefer to install only the software I want vs. having a bunch of 3rd party junkg pre-installed.
I think it's a good idea considering the numerous updates Adobe does to their player. Windows also requires you to download the player from Adobe. I remember the good ol days when it was Macromedia Flash....I don't see it much different than updating video card drivers, by the time you get a machine or new card, the bundled drivers are outdated.
"As you may know, I am one of the most important executives here at Yoyodyne, because I have a new MACBOOK AIR, so if you don't kiss my ass and install Flash for me on my MACBOOK AIR I will have your ass fired in 15 minutes, do you understand?"
That's who these people are.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Windows 7 will prove more secure than OS X Snow Leopard this year, in part because it doesn't have Java and Flash enabled by default... When asked what he thought would make the safest OS and browser combo, he opted for Chrome or IE8 on Windows 7, with no Flash installed, although "there probably isn't enough difference between the browsers to get worked up about."
For my money, the juiciest quote from the interview was "The main thing is not to install Flash!"
Since Pwn2Own allows hackers to attack any plugin installed on the OS by default, Microsoft had an advantage until now.
iPhones would only be able to call other iPhones
Safari would only run on ios/macs and only be able to visit sites hosted by Apple servers
The country would install a separate electricity network which only Apple products could plug into
Human ears would be surgically modified to only hear the patented frequencies that reformatted content from iPods sent out.
North Korea would ask his advice on how to run closed systems.
He'd remove all traces of the 1984 video showing Apple busting big brother.
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 I don't know if it gets used there. I have done it on Windows and not realised a game was written using Flash at the beginning. They don't have to sit in browser windows.
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.
That is correct for now. Who knows how much more the OS will get locked down. Also, look at the iPhone. How popular are the apps that aren't available in the app store?
So the app store will be filled with high quality apps designed for the exclusively for the mac and this bad how? Cross part form apps are a joke.
Ah yes. The old "I don't want it so it should be banned" argument.
It is true that some cross platform and ported programs can be bad because they don't follow the user interface of the platform on which they are currently running. This isn't resticted to what we are discussing here, but includes apps on the Mac that contain Windowisms (where is the menu supposed to go again?), Windows software with Macisms (Apple themselves are the worst at this), and PC games that have a console gaming interface (what, no mouse support?). And then there are the Java apps that don't look right on ANY platform!
However, there are also some cross platform and ported software that DO get it right. And better features trumps a dodgy user interface too. I don't care if you want to avoid these applications, just don't deny other people the right to use the software that they want. If you want to keep up user interface standards in the app store, then do that. But blanket bans on Java and Flash programs are not about that, because it is possible that you can write software using those systems that look like Mac apps.
Why as a user would I care about cross platform? I use one computer.
I didn't realise that the new app store was being written just for you. How selfish can you be?
So let's put it this way. The less reliance you have on single platform applications, the more choice you have next time you want to buy a new computer. It gives you a way to change platforms in a piecemeal fashion.
Cross platform is just developer speak for I'm lazy.
You know it takes more work to do this properly than just to target one platform.
How come no one bitches about Windows not shipping with Flash installed?
Get the fuck over it...
The making shit up was specifically directed at:
We could take a hint from Apple themselves, who have said that it's "one" way of getting software on the Mac. And who have also specifically said that they don't intend to lock down the Mac in the way you seem to fear they will.
As for the iPhone, you and I both know that the only officially sanctioned way of getting software onto the device is, and has always been, the App Store or a web app. So why would you ever think that any app 'not available in the app store' should or would be popular for the iPhone?
No, this is the next logical step if you assume that Apple's goal is to completely lock down the computer and prevent you from using it in any way they don't approve of. Which is, frankly, a ridiculous and paranoid perspective.
Unless you also assume that Google's going to demand that all computers have 3G wireless in order to use Google Apps, or Microsoft is going to cut copy & paste out of their desktop OS, as well - do you fear that that'll happen too?
Different devices have different restrictions. Get used to it, Apple have said specifically that they have no intention of locking down the Mac like the iPhone.
The iPhone is not designed for people that want to open a web browser to fire off an email.
There is a mail app. The design of the iPhone is such that to fire off an angry email, a user would select the mail application, not the web browsing application. I realize this is confusing to you, but once you get used to the apple way of doing things, it actually works quite well.
Adobe flash and pdf viewer represent a never ending stream of vulnerabilities. The less sources of unacceptable quality the better.
iOS =/= OS X
Apple fanbois are quick to say OS X == iOS when it suits them, but they have to say OS X =/= iOS in this case because they are in denial about the coming lock-down of their "open" platform.
You appear to suffer from the effects of the RDF.
You might still be allowed to include your interpreter in your bundle. This is commonly used for Python applications. Sounds wasteful, though.
But Python is installed by default on OS X, so...
Fandroids hate facts.
Apple said this is to get the latest security updates on your own. Do you really think Apple is out to deprive users of YouTube? They'll get the notice the first time they visit and go download the plugin.
They are based on the same kernel (much like various Linux distros) but they are not the same thing.
Surely you can understand two different systems using a common kernel?
OS X and iOS are the same in the same way that Ubuntu and Red Hat are the same.
OK, short term you're looking at a PITA.
But I do actually see some logic here. The big thing about Apple is "it JFW", and the big benefit with Apple packaging Flash and Java is that while it may be a little behind, you automagically get updates as part of the OS updates. So it makes sense for Apple to continue to package Flash and Java, otherwise we'd wind up with a similar mess on OS X to what we have on Windows with every damn application running its own little daemon to check for updates.
The App Store provides a mechanism for third-party developers to hook in and provide all their updates through a single UI. Apple don't have to do it. So it makes sense for Apple to stop doing the work for companies like Oracle and Adobe. Now, while app developers aren't allowed to depend on other applications in order to be accepted, could someone who's actually bothered to read the conditions confirm if is there any reason why Java or Flash couldn't be provided through the app store?
Assuming that such reason does not exist, who'll offer me odds on Flash and Java being made available as apps within a couple of months of the apps store debut?
The making shit up was specifically directed at:
how long until Mac OS users find themselves in that same "walled garden"?
Oh, please! Your full sentence was "Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?". The original poster started with "Rumor has it that the new Mac OS App Store forbids relying on optionally-installed frameworks".
Are you really saying that within one sentence you went from asking about the original poster's opening phrase to his final question/speculation? If so, you were linking two separate things together as if they were one concept.
You can't really expect us to believe this, or are you not wearing pants right now?
We could take a hint from Apple themselves, who have said that it's "one" way of getting software on the Mac.
Apple would never admit to any long term strategy, even if it were not controversial. There would be antitrust problems if Apple tried to ban certain software from their OS. However, they can implement an app store and then only allow access to some new features of their OS to apps from their store. Then they can make the app store the most obvious way to search for software. Eventually, software that was not aquired from the app store will be deemed to be legacy software and for security reasons there will be more restrictions placed on it. They could set up a application approval process so boxed software could be certified to allow it to act like it came from the app store.
So am I "making shit up"? Absolutely! This is all speculation based on the way all companies are beginning to move with their software. Operating systems, applications and games are all becoming locked down vehicles for selling downloadable content and online services. It is the way of the future, and the only way to make it work is to remove the openness that we have enjoyed in the past.
Locking down the iPhone/iPad was a huge success which made them billions in app store revenue. Why wouldn't they want to take it further?
Well, since we've established that the "rumor" about optionally-installed frameworks is NOT a rumor, what the fuck else would I have been talking about, except his *speculation* and unsubstantiated 'what-if's' which he was clearly hoping to astroturf with? His post code be restated to say: "Fact has it that you can't install optionally installed frameworks. I'd like to submit that this is the first step in Apple's nefarious "control everything" scheme to the rumor mill."
There is zero credible evidence that Apple has any intention of 'locking down' Mac OS X. If you want to install Java, or Flash, or any other software that requires optional frameworks, you can't do it through the Mac App Store. That doesn't mean you can't do it, and you know it.
Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see that "you can only install Apple-approved software" is a ridiculous fantasy because it would result in Apple committing suicide by anti-trust regulation and/or by consumer outrage, and I think we can both agree that Apple is, if nothing else, not a bunch of lackwits who can't understand how the consumer markets operate.
Your speculation is worst-case "ZOMG THE SKY R FALLINGZ!" alarmist nonsense that isn't even worth considering, much less lending credence to by pretending it's even remotely a likely outcome.
Because the iPhone and the iPad are mobile devices which are not full-fledged 'general purpose computers,' whereas a computer running Mac OS X *is* a 'general purpose computer', and unless you're going to assert that you also believe every other computing platform will eventually morph into the mobile device version of the platform because this is an 'inevitable' consequence of someone wanting to make money, then you have no logical or historical precedent to make the assertion. What is so hard to understand about "phones and tablets" being different than "general purpose computers"?
At the same time, Apple has stated at least twice that they have no intention of 'locking down' the Mac OS X software like they have with the iPhone - once when the iPhone store debuted and people started with the "ZOMG THE SKY R FALLING" nonsense, and once in this past keynote, where Steve Jobs specifically said "this is one way to get software", not "this is the only way to get software."
Logically, the conclusion is that they consider the two devices separate categories, with separate operating systems, and are simply borrowing useful ideas from one OS to the other.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I've been a Mac user for 23 years and want to hear a promise from Apple that they have no intention of locking down the Mac. I'm getting worried that I'm going to have to switch platform.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Like it did on the iPhone and iPad?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I've had a suspicion for a while now that Slashdot is being astroturfed by people who are either directly involved with Google or have a vested interested in its platforms like Android. Slashdot used to be friendly to Apple, critical of some things but congratulatory toward their products and success. Since Android has come out, every Apple article now is filled with Apple-bashers, people who really seem to be working unusually hard to convince everyone that Apple is evil, not worth your time, and only used by sheep. Often, they reference Steve Jobs by name, as if he can hear them or something.
I'll get accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, and I don't dismiss the fact that there have always been Apple-haters posting on Slashdot regardless of Google, but watching the tone of the comments shift so radically has been unusual, especially when the tone in articles that are critical of Google are the exact opposite--a ton of defenders justifying Google's every move, even when they're caught archiving emails and passwords from WiFi networks or when it turns out Android isn't open at all because it's controlled by the carriers. People who bash Google get modded down or drowned out by apologists.
Apple can't even introduce a Mac App Store without it some slippery slope argument claiming that the Mac will become a closed platform, despite Apple specifically mentioning that it won't be the only source of software. Linux distros have quality-tested, centralized repositories of software. Microsoft is introducing an app store in Windows 8 according to that leaked presentation. But when Apple does it, it's evil.
There's something suspicious about the sudden antagonism toward Apple. Like I said, there's always been a level of criticism over things like prices or hardware specs, but it's never risen to the degree it's at now where even things like not pre-installing Flash is some crime, even though Windows and Linux don't ship with Flash either. You have to install it yourself, whether it's from Adobe's site or using apt-get. There's a lot of misdirection going on. Look at the recent Java article whose headline and summary implied Apple was deprecating Java itself and not simply deprecating their pre-installed JVM. Again, Windows and Linux distros don't ship with Java pre-installed like that either. Apple was shipping these things back when the Mac was still clawing it's way back out of obscurity, and they couldn't count on companies like Sun to bother with their platform.
I believe Slashdot is getting astroturfed hard. The constant argument that only rubes use Macs is an attempt to rally "independent-minded" Linux users against Apple and keep them away from products like the iPhone, because some of these trolls have--I believe--a vested interest in Android. So many of the posts are just too suspicious. If Apple had been caught archiving people's emails and passwords, or if Steve Jobs had come out and said that the only people who care about privacy are people who have something to hide (as Google CEO Eric Schmidt did), the comments to the stories would have exploded in their level of sheer Apple hatred, yet those Google stories had defenders out in full force protecting the company. Something fishy is going on.
Why is this even here, exactly? Oh, that's right. Because the six Adobe fanbois, all of whom stalk /., are trying to stir up something from nothing.
Flash Player doesn't ship by default on any OS that I have installed on any of the computers in my house, and I like it that way. If I need it, I'll go get it myself.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
With Apple soon to be selling nearly 20 million Macs per year, Adobe will soon no longer be able to claim Flash is "reaching 99% of Internet-enabled desktops".
So Apple joins Microsoft in not shipping Flash pre-installed with their OS, and this proves that Apple has a "vendetta" against Flash?
There have been a lot of patches to fix security problems in Flash of late. Flash doesn't instantly auto-update, so if Apple ships a version with a security hole, there is a window of time during which a user's computer is vulnerable.
Besides, if you go to a Flash-enabled site without Flash, you are immediately prompted to download Flash, so preinstalling Flash is at most a very minor convenience.
If Apple really wanted to wage ware against Flash, they could ship Safari with something like ClickToFlash preinstalled.
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.
The PPC to Intel transition was a big problem for many established users, and it hasn't ended yet (developers are discontinuing PPC apps now, though the systems are still in service). Also part of the reason for the rise in popularity is that you can run Windows, either in a VM or on native hardware. It is amazing the amount of people who get Macs for that reason. They need something Windows based, but they want a shiny toy, and Mac now can provide that. We have that all the time where I work, since most engineering apps are Windows only or Windows/Solaris (not much Mac). However I see it all over campus. VMWare Fusion is an extremely popular sale, as is Parallels. Play with a Mac, but run the Windows software you need. Bootcamp is also popular, to play games.
Well a move away from Intel kills all that. No native booting of Windows, of course, but no VMs either. A full out emulator could be written of course, like Virtual PC was, but like Virtual PC it would be slow. VMs are fast because they virtualize and use hardware acceleration, full out emulators are much slower.
Then there's your assertion about ARM's speed. Is that really the case? You sure? Have numbers to back it up? If so a link would be nice but consider first that the question isn't if they do better per watt on a given test that ARM likes, but do they do better per watt on desktop activities. Hard hitting floating point would be a big one. Desktop CPUs have massive FPUs, fare more than their integer units, and getting larger all the time. They don't just do floating point, they do vector math, and lots of it. This is what you've got to have for fast media, games, simulations, all kinds of shit. How's ARM do per watt in that arena? Also you have to consider features. Remember the virtualization thing (which is huge these days)? Well guess what? Desktop CPUs deal with that too. They've got silicon for the purpose of making virtualization faster, easier.
I hear this "ARM is sooooo much better," thing paraded around by ARM guys often, but I've never seen anything to back it up. Do you have a test that shows doing varied, processor intensive tasks, that ARM is better per watt than x86? Not low end, embedded tasks, because that's not what is under discussion here. Things like media encoding. Also making sure that the test is even, meaning if you are doing 64-bit FP processing on x86 to maintain precision (common for media stuff) you can't then use a 32-bit int version on the ARM that produces an inferior result.
A big reason to be skeptical is the simple lack of ARM super computers. Really, if it was so much better per watt than x86 and Power, why don't high end super computers use it? they are massively parallel after all, so that ARM might do it with more cores isn't a huge deal. They are custom built, it is ok to have different architecture, and novel solutions. Why are they all AMD, Intel, Power, Cell?
Don't get me wrong, ARM is a hell of a good embedded architecture. That doesn't mean it is a hell of a good desktop architecture.
Those jerks at Apple never include free software like these either:
Flip4Mac, Perian, Silverlight, TextWrangler, Colloquy, Cyberduck, Dropbox, Firefox, Chrome, Google Earth, Handbrake, VLC, OpenOffice.org, Notational Velocity, etc.
Of course, they also never include "free" software to TRY (then pay for) like all of the Windows machines I've used. Stuff like:
Terrible media players by Sony, Quicken, Quickbooks, TurboTax, Microsoft Office trial, An oldie but a goodie — MS Works, 18 GB of shovelware by the OEM, Stickers!!, Two or three anti-virus trials (which conflict with each other and make the machine crawl), etc.
Maybe Apple expects the user to take the nice, clean Mac and install only the software the USER WANTS!
Google Chrome ships with Flash player linked in. Think of it as a better, faster Safari that stays up to date and comes with flash.
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/03/improved_flash_player_support.html
The only thing I can reply is that if ARM wasn't better per watt than x86 or PPC, cellphones from all manufacturers wouldn't be using it.
For one, there's a big difference between performance per watt and watts of power draw period. Mobile phones need a low power draw, regardless of performance. So suppose we have a general Benchmark X that is the be-all, end-all of performance metering. I know it doesn't exist, just as an example. Now suppose a 0.5watt ARM chip does 100 BX units. Suppose then that a 90 watt Core i7 does 40,000 BX units. The Core i7 is actually more than twice as efficient per watt at the BX test. However you still wouldn't use it in a phone. Why? Because it is 90 watts, that's why. Doesn't matter if it is more efficient, matters that it is too big over all. It isn't like a Core i7 can just be "cut down" either. Even if you only take one core and rework it to have a single execution unit and so on it'll still be quite large. It cannot be "cut down" to embedded levels, a new design would be needed.
However the other thing is, as I noted, there is no "BX," no "One benchmark to rule them all." ARM is efficient at some things, and those things are what is important to an embedded device. Doesn't mean it is efficient at all things, doesn't mean it is efficient at what matters to a desktop. It does not logically follow that ARM is good for the desktop because it is good for embedded.
As I said, you discover that the big thing in terms of desktop performance is heavy hitting vector FP math. This is particularly used in media (audio/video) stuff which is a market Apple pushes heavily in. Remember the big deal about AltiVec? I've never seen ARM benchmarks on that kind of stuff so I cannot say how it does, but I'll wager it isn't so hot. Then there are other things, like say 64-bit support. All the ARM CPUs I'm aware of are 32-bit. No problem, you aren't going to rock more than 4GB of RAM in an embedded device any time soon however for desktops, it is an issue. More than 4GB is common, 64-bit is needed. Guess what? That adds complexity, adds circuits. There are also things like the virtualization extensions I mentioned. VT-d and so on, the ability to run VMs are close to native speed. I know ARM has nothing like that, which again adds complexity.
I suspect you'd discover that when you scaled ARM up to desktop levels of performance and features, well it'd use desktop levels of power too. There's just not really a way around it. Seems some people on Slashdot have this idea that there are amazing ways to get tons more performance out of chips if only evil Intel wasn't controlling things. However actual evidence doesn't support that.
At the same time, Apple has stated at least twice that they have no intention of 'locking down' the Mac OS X software like they have with the iPhone - once when the iPhone store debuted and people started with the "ZOMG THE SKY R FALLING" nonsense, and once in this past keynote, where Steve Jobs specifically said "this is one way to get software", not "this is the only way to get software."
Logically, the conclusion is that they consider the two devices separate categories, with separate operating systems, and are simply borrowing useful ideas from one OS to the other.
After what they "learned from iOS", if Apple could get away with locking down OS X, they would. Pure and simple. The only reason they aren't is that they don't think they can get away with doing that, yet. They want to monetize their devices as much as possible, and tax developers on their platforms. They are not chasing developers. They want developers to chase them, the way they do on iOS. That is a big part of their business model going forward. And yes, developers do chase Apple to get on the iOS. Whether this is all bad or good is up to you. Whether you want to invest in Mac for your enterprise or at your home is up to you.
Here you go.
Of course, the paranoid in their tinfoil hats will read that and say "STEVE LIED." He's not that fucking stupid - the linked email exchange was from April of this year - 6 months ago. They obviously had the app store in the works back then, and he has a history of responding to large "loaded" questions with a very terse redirection.
The rumor communicated in the email linked above states:
1) A Mac App Store is coming;
2) Only apple-approved software will run on OS X;
Then asks, "is that true?" The answer: "Nope."
Now, given that 6 months ago, Steve Jobs couldn't have NOT known about an App Store being built... we can only conclude that he's either:
1) Lying, and lying on the record, with no care for whether or not people feel that he's betrayed them;
2) The second part of the rumor ('only apple-approved software will run...') is not true, making the rumor taken as a whole false.
How tight your tinfoil hat is will determine which explanation you think is most likely.
Cheap bastards.
How much does a cupholder cost?
Well, since we've established that the "rumor" about optionally-installed frameworks is NOT a rumor, what the fuck else would I have been talking about, except his *speculation* and unsubstantiated 'what-if's' which he was clearly hoping to astroturf with?
No, we didn't establish that it wasn't a rumor, I did and only AFTER you submitted your post. You only claimed to have read the developer docs AFTER I posted a link to it. You used the same terminology as the OP but later claimed that it referred to part if the post where it really didn't apply.
Finally you refer to Mr Coward's unsubstantiated claims but you have not backed up your claims either. Metamatic asked for the source that shows Apple comments on this matter. You claim the the OP was an astroturfer, but you seem hell bent on doing everything you can to quell any speculation on Apple's direction for the Mac.
My contention is that this is a first step towards a final outcome. Your argument is that it can't be that because it is currently not like the final outcome. You claim I ignore the other avenues of installing software and the anti trust regulation of blocking software from outside the app store, but the scenario I posted explicitly says how they can gradually change their system to avoid anti trust laws. And to quell customer outrage, Apple can always rely on people like you.
There is no updater in Flash Player for Mac.
Adobe's global flash settings page specifically says that there is no updater for Flash Player for Mac.
Note: Automatic notification is available on most Microsoft Windows platforms. You also need to have permission to install software on your computer; that is, you need to log in as an administrator or as a user who has permission to install software..
Users on all supported platforms can manually check whether their installed Flash Player is the latest, most secure version.
Seems that the vendetta is all PR, since Apple is allowing Adobe Air Packager for iOS, hich plays, drum roll......Flash content.
Jobs, for whatever reason, wants the functionality of Flash, but doesn't want to draw attention to the fact that content is Flash. Hence, "Adobe Air Packager for iOS"! Flash without saying Flash.
(Still no Flash plugin for iPhone browser though)
Why haven't Sony used the experiences from PS3 to lock down Vaio computers? Heck, why haven't Microsoft used their Zune success to lock down Windows? (After all that is what they are doing with Windows Phone 7 Series!)
Because they are different machines for different purposes.