FedEx Will Pay You $5 To Install Flash (theregister.co.uk)

FedEx's Office Print department is offering customers $5 to enable Adobe Flash in their browsers. Why would they do such a thing you may ask? It's because they want customers to design posters, signs, manuals, banners and promotional agents using their "web-based config-o-tronic widgets," which requires Adobe Flash. The Register reports: But the web-based config-o-tronic widgets that let you whip and order those masterpieces requires Adobe Flash, the enemy of anyone interested in security and browser stability. And by anyone we mean Google, which with Chrome 56 will only load Flash if users say they want to use it, and Microsoft which will stop supporting Flash in its Edge browser when the Windows 10 Creators Update debuts. Mozilla's Firefox will still run Flash, but not for long. The impact of all that Flash hate is clearly that people are showing up at FedEx Office Print without the putrid plug-in. But seeing as they can't use the service without it, FedEx has to make the offer depicted above or visible online here. That page offers a link to download Flash, which is both a good and a bad idea. The good is that the link goes to the latest version of Flash, which includes years' worth of bug fixes. The bad is that Flash has needed bug fixes for years and a steady drip of newly-detected problems means there's no guarantee the software's woes have ended. Scoring yourself a $5 discount could therefore cost you plenty in future.

Comments

Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what, I'll pay them $5.00 USD to use HTML5 instead of flash. Or I'll just use their paper forms. Ain't no way I'm installing flash on any computer I control.

Re:Not flash. No.

[ShanghaiBill]

The Html5 canvas has been widely available since 2006, and FedEx is a $50B/yr company. Why would it take them more than a decade to update a legacy app to a modern platform? Instead of paying their customers to install malware, they should hire some competent developers.

Re: Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only bad evil luddites use Flash.
Good appy app apps use HTML5.

Re: Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because outsourcing.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of paying their customers

They aren't paying you anything. Giving you a $5 discount off money you haven't spent yet is not the same as "paying you $5". If people actually fall for this scam, it saves FedEx a lot of money (they don't have to pay someone to write a non-flash app) and costs them exactly nothing.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Raenex]

The Html5 canvas has been widely available since 2006

Is it more secure, or did they just move the bugs normally found in Flash to an even deeper level within the browser that can't be disabled trivially?

Re:Not flash. No.

[krigat]

The reason is simple: FedEx is not an "Internet company". It's old school offline business, and those companies often have managers/deciders in their 50s or 60s that grew up without Internet, and thus have still no idea how it works. They think in decades, and forget that a decade in online business is like a century in old school business. To line it up: the managers at FedEx who decided about the Flash campaign probably think they are super modern, because 10 years ago they had read that Flash is a cool technology.

Re:Not flash. No.

[BarbaraHudson]

htlm5 canvas is part of the web browser, so it's inherently as strong as the weakest link in the chain - and it sucks up WAY more cpu than flash ever did. Short answer - you're fscked either way.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash vs Chrome.

Guess what has a constant stream of security vulnerabilities.

Guess what did NOT get hacked at Pwn2Own.

Re:Not flash. No.

[skr95062]

Have you ever used any Fed Ex software?
Their Ship Manager software takes longer to load than the competitors (big brown truck) ship software.
Their update process for the software is terrible.
Even the web based version leaves a lot to be desired.
Doubtful they will ever hire competent developers given the state of the ship software.
Glad we do a majority of our shipping with the other guys.

Re:Not flash. No.

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'll pay you $20 not to install Flash.

Here's how it works.

1) Don't install Flash.
2) This will prevent you from spending $30 with FedEx, which you were planning to do to get that $5.
3) Send me $5.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow your ageist bias shows. The managers that you describe do exist, but they were in their 50's and 60's in the 1990's when flash was the hip new cool thing. They are in their 80's and 90's now, and they still control their 50 and 60-something infantile board members and managers with an iron fist. You're mostly right though.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lynx?

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is inherently more secure by design, but that is also the reason it runs like a fucking bitch because decent security = higher CPU demands.

Look at practically any game as well, the network security is usually horrific early on in development which means you could teleport, blow people up remotely, spawn items and all kinds of hilariously broken stuff.
They up the security and lag always increases, as well as rubberbanding in worse cases.

But overall, it still has deep access, even more so, than Flash. All it will take is one really good exploit and an ad network and boom, over a billion people vulnerable in an instant.
And it is far harder to disable Canvas.
As was evident at pwn2own and other groups and events, as well as leaks, it is more a case of chained attacks these days than simple exploits.
Harder to find, but when they are found, they can usually be patched much easier because all you need to do is break one chain and the exploit is a dud.
The problem there is there are entire agencies in many countries paid well in excess of what any of these browser groups and independent security researchers are paid. And 100% of their work is breaking shit to their advantage.

Flash Vs Canvas is like Urine Vs Shit.
Both are useful in their own ways. Still waste.
Until browsers get decent VM support (as more hardware is coming out with it by default), they will be huge resource hogs. Sandboxing is way too expensive in software mode. Micro-VM instances would work better I think. (of course, even a VM was broken out of at pwn2own, one of said chained exploits)

Re:Not flash. No.

[Billly Gates]

Thank Internet Explorer. Many customers still use IE from last decade so HTML 5 is a no go and too scary.

What do you want to make a bet FedEx still uses IE 8 and can't even get a green light from their IT department yet?

Re:Not flash. No.

[Billly Gates]

Sorry it can't run on IE 6/8. Ain't gonna happen and welcome to the life of web developers?

If 40% of your customers use ancient 8 year old browsers you don't say no to money!

Re:Not flash. No.

[Bert64]

Only there are multiple independent implementations of HTML5, so any exploit is only likely to affect one implementation at a time.
Flash only really had one implementation, so any bug affected everyone.

Re:Not flash. No.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL IRT!

Hahaha

[Desler]

Still $100 too expensive.

Re:Hahaha

[msauve]

Heck, it should be easy to automate spinning up VM's, installing flash on a few different browsers in each, then collecting $5 for each. I'm guessing way more than $100 is possible.

Re:Hahaha

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm guessing way more than $100 is possible.

Read TFA before you spend much time on that project. Blame goes to the clickbait headline, but still.

"You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[ZorinLynx]

I said that a few months ago. I never figured someone would actually attempt to do so.

And yes it still applies.

Re:"You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends, how many times will they pay me to install it?
I can un-install it one more time then they are willing to pay me to install it.

Re:"You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[sexconker]

It depends, how many times will they pay me to install it?
I can un-install it one more time then they are willing to pay me to install it.

I can uninstall it exactly as many times as they pay me to install it.

Re: "You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[Anonymous Coward]

If so I plan to buy all my Rizzla online from now on, one pack at a time, with free home delivery.

VM rollback rather than uninstall...

Re: "You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[Anonymous Coward]

s/buy/sell/

Damn, run out of rizzla...

Re:"You couldn't pay me to install Flash."

[Anonymous Coward]

well it's a good thing they aren't really PAYING you five bucks, then.

it is, rather, a five dollar discount on a $30+ order, which is more than likely marked up at least an extra $10 already to compensate for paying out bribes to get people to use a flash-enabled browser.

Customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha, they must mean the people who "send" packages and get royal treatment. Because as customer who has "received" packages from FedEx I can tell you they only want to screw their "customers" over with bogus shipping charges.

Re:Customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Fedex rep at work is great. He stops by at least once a month with donuts or pastries from different bakeries.

Re: Customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just picture an office full of Americans waddling their giant lard asses over to the free donuts and pastries!

Or just make templates for people to use?

[Anonymous Coward]

LibreOffice and GIMP are free. Sounds like they want free designers. Anything you make on their site becomes FedEx property.

Reminds me of where I work

[_xeno_]

Every other month it seems, we get an urgent notice from IT reminding us to either uninstall or update Flash.

Unfortunately, I have to have Flash installed on my work computers because the corporate-required "training" courses that they keep on making us take require Flash - such as the one on "information security" about how important it is to keep our software up to date.

So, basically, I have to have Flash installed so I can tick off a little checkbox that says I know not to install software like Flash.

Re:Reminds me of where I work

[DontBeAMoran]

I think irony is not a strong enough word for your situation. May I suggest a new stronger word, perhaps? How about titaniumy?

Re:Reminds me of where I work

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

I was going to say "rain", but "titanium on your wedding day" might also work. Although, then somebody might think you're talking about the rings. So how about acid: "Acid rain on your wedding day". That sounds unpleasant, and very ironic, don't you think?

Re:Reminds me of where I work

[DontBeAMoran]

Not as titaniumic as you'd think.

How many takers are they expecting?

[drinkypoo]

Surely it would be cheaper to get some student somewhere to slap together a HTML version.

Re:How many takers are they expecting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree, but it's not paying $5 to people, it's offering customers a one-time $5 discount on purchases over $30.

Consider the following: your department is asked to come up with a way to make customers use this service.
"We could offer customers a discount on qualified purchases."
"We could pay someone to redo work we already did."
One costs money, one slightly reduces profits (proportional to customer demand) and may be easier to word in a way that management likes.

The sunk cost fallacy is everywhere.

Re:How many takers are they expecting?

[CanadianMacFan]

Getting a student somewhere to slap something together is how they are here in the first place.

Re:How many takers are they expecting?

[drinkypoo]

Getting a student somewhere to slap something together is how they are here in the first place.

Oh no, I doubt that very much. I would bet actual money that they paid someone a lot to put together an obsolete solution.

Pay You???? BULLSHIT!

[frovingslosh]

Pay you? That's Bulls... I mean Fake News. They will give you an imaginary $5 "discount" on something that they completely control the price of. They will not pay you anything, just pretend that you are saving some money off of a high priced service.

How stupid is this?

[SensitiveMale]

FedEx use that money and pay some developer to rewrite that crap.

Re:How stupid is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

FedEx use that money and pay some developer to rewrite that crap.

I don't know many developers who would be willing to get paid in $5 off coupons for use of a program that is so bad they are being paid in coupons just to rewrite it from scratch.

That's sorta like paying someone a bag of garbage in exchange for taking out your trash.

Re:How stupid is this?

[SensitiveMale]

FedEx use that money and pay some developer to rewrite that crap.

I don't know many developers who would be willing to get paid in $5 off coupons for use of a program that is so bad they are being paid in coupons just to rewrite it from scratch.

That's sorta like paying someone a bag of garbage in exchange for taking out your trash.

I know I'm being trolled, but don't be a tard. Of course FedEx has budgeted a certain amount of money for this.

Re:How stupid is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no developers available to do the needful. This week it's Diwali, or some other week-long celebration in India when nobody goes to work, that outsourcing firms forget to mention when convincing companies to send all their jobs overseas...

Fedex outsources and uses H-1Bs, employing the standard tricks, many of their job postings have requirements nobody can possibly meet. Look at developer postings for Fedex and you'll find most of them require years of experience with something called "Fedex Developer Tool Chain." Of course, nobody outside the company has that experience, so Fedex can wave their hands and say, "See, we can't find any qualified Americans to hire!" And more jobs get shipped out of America.

Re:How stupid is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm being trolled, but don't be a tard. Of course FedEx has budgeted a certain amount of money for this.

I'm honestly not trolling. Offering a $5 discount costs them nothing. No budget is required.

Sure they may claim "We will lose potential profits" but in reality that isn't the same thing as having to spend money you actually do have.

If you are purely talking about rewriting their flash software in something else, yea I'm sure (or would hope!) they have budgeted something for that, since that Would cost money to do.

But you specifically said:
FedEx use that money and pay some developer to rewrite that crap.

Am I misreading what you mean? Because that to me seems to think you are talking about money they have, I assume allocated for something else, that you want them to use for development purposes.

What money were you actually referring to?
Because the topic at hand was the $5 discount off their services they are offering for you to enable flash.

A discount is not money they have, it means if anything making LESS money with which to spend.

Seriously, I know trolling by ACs is bad around here, but what I said was NOT a troll. I was comically wording an analogy for what is actually happening, which is counter to what you implied.

Better approach...

[QuietLagoon]

Why don't they just pay their web developers to develop an app in a more secure environment than Flash? Geesh, take about short-sighted corporate policies.

Re: Better approach...

[Anonymous Coward]

true to that get with it fedex and quit being lazzy.

Re:Better approach...

[BarbaraHudson]

You mean one that doesn't run in a web browser or on a phone that no longer gets updates (that's most phones)? Web developers are shit at security.

The answer, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Is to install Silverlight.

Discount != paying you.

[whoever57]

FedEx is not paying anyone to install flash. Instead, they are offering a $5 discount. There is a huge difference.

Re:Discount != paying you.

[ark1]

This need mod points. Headline is a click-bait.

Re:Discount != paying you.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a Slashvertisement.

Flash Is Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal with it. (super cool shades emoji)

It's A Subsidy!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a subsidy! This is no different than the subsidies that the government pays to oil companies.

Re:It's A Subsidy!

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's a subsidy! This is no different than the subsidies that the government pays to oil companies.

OMG, are we going to war to prop up the Flash economy? Figures - Flash was almost dead and along comes the government to ruin our party.

ok

[Anonymous Coward]

if they pay me 5 bucks daily i will install it in a separate browser just for them(i dont use it anywere else).

Flash @ The Register

[kevink707]

Ironically The Register article linked to has content (presumably ads) using Flash so you get an "Do you want to enable flash" popup.

Nice!

[nospam007]

So if I enable flash in ma Edge, Opera, Opera Neon, Chrome, ... I get 20 bucks or more and I can continue to use Firefox without it?

Sweet!

Use Flash???

[Anonymous Coward]

I just sent a complaint telling them to upgrade to HTML5.

pay you

[Anonymous Coward]

>pay you $5
Right, like the $5 trillion stolen from the movie industry.

Yeah, how about no?

[Snotnose]

Been running a flash blocker for years now and I'm perfectly happy with it. If I run across flash I wanna let run I can right click on it and jump through hoops. Happens maybe once a week. Beats having flash fuck me a couple times a day.

Re: Cat

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kitten me right meow?!

Adobe's thoughts

[CanadianMacFan]

I wonder what Adobe thinks about other companies offering discounts to install their software.

Re: Adobe's thoughts

[Ilgaz]

I think they should question why their high end expensive software & solution providers & developers couldn't make a major customer move to HTML5 as advertised. They couldn't even move to Air which should work.

Re:Hahaha VMs

[Anonymous Coward]

VM's is a common technique for running unwanted software like Flash, and Java.

It's actually a hard problem

[Shados]

No, not getting people to install Flash, that's just stupid.

But the "design at home" small business or individual printing market. If you don't want to have people install shit, you need to make a WYSIWYG in-browser editor that can produce pixel perfect, color accurate content using stuff such as arbitrary custom fonts.

Doable? Yes. But the compromises are interesting. I used to work for a big company where we did this. Our competitors were using stuff like Flash, limited templates, sticking to built in fonts, would not garentee what you saw on the screen is what you would get (and just have a good return policity), etc. Our team handling this did stuff such as rendering the fonts server side and re-implementing all of the text handling in javascript, abusing canvas to hell and back, etc.

But yeah, you can use Flash to make things easier.

Market value

[manu0601]

Market value for a malware like Flash: -5 USD

Don't believe the headline

[Koen Lefever]

FedEx will not give you $5, you just get a discount of $5 on an order over $30.

From the FedEx website:

We apologize for the inconvenience, but it looks like your browser no longer supports Flash®.
In order to enable Flash and continue with your FedEx Office® print purchase, please update your browser using the simple steps provided below.

As a thank you for your patience and for being a valued FedEx Office customer, please use “FLA726” at checkout to receive $5 off on orders over $30*.
*See Terms and Conditions

So, you will be "collecting" nothing, no matter how many virtual machines you use.

Re:Don't believe the headline

[msauve]

Blame BeauHD (the new Timothy), not me. I responded to the claim ("FedEx Will Pay You $5 To Install Flash")

I know that many don't read the articles, or even the complete summaries. But when an "editor" posts an inaccurate headline, it's on them, not me. They get paid for posting, the rest of us don't.

Re: Don't believe the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. They get paid for you clicking on a link so you view ads.

Re:Don't believe the headline

[Koen Lefever]

I am not blaming you at all, I was just informing you about the sensationalist spin-doctored headline.
If anybody is to blame about that, it is The Register.
Cheers!

Re: Don't believe the headline

[arth1]

Wrong. They get paid for you clicking on a link so you view ads.

There are ads here?

Reminds me of a certain security company

[raymorris]

> keep on making us take require Flash - such as the one on "information security" ...
> I have to have Flash installed so I can tick off a little checkbox that says I know not to install software like Flash.

That reminds me of a certain network security company. They have all of their employees take annual security training, provided by a third-party. In order to keep track of who has done the training, employees log in to the third-party site using their Active Directory credentials - the same credentials that have access to all of the company resources, and indirectly, customer networks.

Well that's kinda stupid, employees need to be pretty careful that they don't get phished into entering their AD credentials into the wrong third-party site. They better look carefully at the URL in that email from "corporate security", right? No can do, all incoming email has URLs obfuscated by the email "security" system so you can't tell where the URL points to without clicking it.

There's literally no way for employees to know if they are sending their AD credentials to the site they are required to send them to, or sending them to a phisher.

Steve Jobs was right about Flash.

[seoras]

I seem to remember Apple getting mauled in the media for refusing to allow flash on their new iPhone platform
So much so that Jobs wrote a open public letter to explain his reasons:
Thoughts on Flash Steve Jobs - April, 2010
In the context of the time, it was both brave (yes, I said it) and correct.
Why is anyone still hanging onto this legacy of a bygone technology era?

so...

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't pay me to install flash. Maybe take the short term $5 you're LOSING and invest in html5

Adobe's Air

[Ilgaz]

Can't they convert their app to Adobe Air self contained "application"? It even works on Android tablets & phones that way.

That is what Oracle suggests to developers relying on embedded Java in web pages, move to Webstart.

lol

[KingBenny]

i will pay fedex $5 one time in the name of sapient retards to use ancient html 5 tek

It's bitztream

[Anonymous Coward]

The autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!

$500

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I might do it for $500. Might.

Score:-5, Pwned

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness BitZtream getting pwned!

Oh, Didn't Know. Now I Will Avoid Fedex

[BrendaEM]

Well, they made their decision, and I made mine.

I'd rather use LaTeX

[colinrichardday]

Do the graphics in pstricks, then foo.tex -> foo.dvi _> foo.ps -> foo.pdf.

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

My computer cost $2K (just from all the parts that I bought and put together myself) and I've put many hours thus far into configuring it.

I'm not going to completely undermine that work by installing something that has a ton of security holes and compromises my whole system.

Just bury it already.

So,

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?