POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

Back to Article

  • quiksilvr - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    We were begging Adobe for years to improve flash. Within two years of Apple complaining about it, they have enabled:
    1. Hardware video decoding
    2. Multiple monitor full-screen support
    3. Impressive CPU and memory efficiency

    And now with 11, they finally (FINALLY) got 64-bit support. But it begs the question...why did it take Apple's pushing to do this?
    Reply
  • Capt Caveman - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    B/c not only Apple but Google and Microsoft don't want to deal with Flash and looking to move away from it. It may be too late for Adobe. Reply
  • B3an - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Google support Flash. They include it in there browser, they admit the web needs flash for certain things, many of there sites use it, and it's one of the bigger selling points for Android.

    Only a fool would think that HTML5 can completely replace Flash when it cant even do half of the things, and even when it can it often runs worse. Flash also gets new features every year, it will always remain ahead.

    And in the article it says:
    "the Unity Web Player is already driving 3D games in browser windows today"

    ...Unity 3D dev software will soon have Flash support. No one will use the Unity Web player when Flash can now do all this and is far more popular. This article also fails to mention that Flash Player 11 now has access to DirectX on Windows, and OpenGL on any other OS. It can literally do console level graphics in the browser, as anything DX/OpenGL can do, Flash can now do.
    Reply
  • FaaR - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    It won't matter how much flash can do, it's still destined for obsolescence because nobody except some flash developers and Adobe themselves really like it.

    Also, regardless how feature-packed it is, it'll always be an additional source of browser-crashing bugs and a vector for exploits (and Adobe has always been piss-poor at dealing with both of those), and millions of people will continue using ancient flash versions with severe glitches and gaping security holes for years to come.

    THAT is the legacy of Crap - er, sorry, Flash.
    Reply
  • Bozzified - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Nonsense.. most people actually like Flash because it offers so many things.. Not only consumers for games and video but actually businesses too.

    Google supports flash FULLY because they know that HTML5 still can't replace Flash and won't for many years to come.

    Flash Player 11 and AIR 3.0 put Flash platform lightyears ahead of HTML5 again and are already becoming de-facto standard for awesome 3D games online and for mobile/tablets.

    Just look at Machinarium, the best selling game on iOS. Made completely in Flash.

    Only Apple fanboys and those developer who never learned Flash and are now hoping they will have more work with HTML5 are whining about Flash dying.

    The reality is that plugins have brought revolution to the web. And are absolutely needed to push the boundaries of HTML since W3C and web standards evolve at a snail pace. It took them 15 years to get HTML to the point of not being a mess and have changed 10 times the direction (XHTML, HTML, DHTML etc).

    Javascript the same. It took 10 years for us to get a proper cross-browser compatible JQuery and similar libraries.

    This is why plugins have a tremendous value and Flash is really the only ubiqutous plugin that pushes the boundaries with every single release.

    HTML5 and JS are nowhere near close to full 2D and 3D GPU acceleration. If you mention WebGL, I'm gonna burst from laughing.

    And let's not get into tools or lack there of from HTML5.

    It is great that HTML5 can now do some very basic things we had to use Flash and for that, it's a welcome addition, but now Adobe can concentrate on going forward and bringing even more advanced features, native apps and so on with Flash/AIR Platform and they are doing a KILLER job.

    Only an idiot would kill a superior technology on account of HTML5 just because it can do 30-40% of what Flash can.

    Tell me, if you think Flash should be done, than you almost certainly want h.264 to be out too right? Cause, h.264 is a proprietary technology/codec and even worse than Flash actually requires licensing in use.

    There is value in proprietary technologies. Just because something is open doesn't mean it's better.
    Reply
  • realmike15 - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    I've given up on Flash at this point. HTML5 is so much more superior, it's just a matter of time. It's amazing how many problems are related to Flash when you look at the whole picture.

    There's no reason for Flash to continue, Adobe had their chance and instead they decided to err on the side of corporate greed instead of customer service. At this point, aside from Photoshop and Lightroom... I'm Adobe free.
    Reply
  • Paul Tarnowski - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    God, I should charge Adobe extra for all the times I've had to go on a service call to clear out a virus that got in through Flash. Sure, the user shouldn't click on everything, but why the hell is flash so open to exploitation in the first place?

    No, the platform may not be on it's last legs, but it will be replaced. There's no way to avoid it. These improvements, though welcome, are just delaying the downfall.
    Reply
  • Bozzified - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    You got virus through Flash? What a bunch of bullshit. I have not heard a SINGLE person that got a virus through Flash. You are just a liar. Reply
  • tenchymuyo2 - Sunday, September 25, 2011 - link

    I think there was only one instance of a virus through flash and it was an extremely minor one. SWF/LFM-926 came around when it was still called Macromedia Flash. Nowadays when Adobe puts out an update, sites like YouTube and others install it immediately and refuse access to users whose computers aren't likewise upgraded.

    Now there ARE those video boxes on sites (usually the naughty ones) that resemble a flash video but in reality are .exe files in disguise. Clicking those will certainly infect a system without warning.
    Reply
  • erple2 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Sounds like a grand idea. But there's just as many "problems" with HTML5 (though of a slightly different nature) - not all browsers support all of HTML5. And that includes mobile phones (arguably the market that's pushing HTML5).

    Looking at the current crop of browsers, none of them fully support HTML5. Some are better than others, but none are 100%. The ones that are closest to 100% (Chrome, Safari) I'm pretty sure aren't even close to being "supported", at least from the perspective of business in this country (given that the vast majority of businesses use IE - heck, my company still uses IE7 and 8, only just recently having switched off IE6, and we don't get admin rights to install a better browser - they even block the Chrome download page at the firewall).

    So you're just trading one set of problems for another... Until everyone uses a fully compliant HTML5 browser, it's going to remain Flash for the future.
    Reply
  • name99 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Your argument makes no sense.
    "Looking at the current crop of browsers, none of them fully support HTML5." Oh, as opposed to the way they ALL (Mobile Safari, Mobile IE10) support Flash? Many of those mobiles that supposedly do support Flash do it badly. Not to mention that all Macs now come without Flash installed --- how many users bother to add it --- and with Win 8 the same will be true of Windows.

    The HTML5 trajectory is up, the Flash trajectory is down. As a programmer or a web site, you can choose whether you want to be part of the future or part of the past.
    Reply
  • Bozzified - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    HTML5 trajectory is up and will always be bigger than Flash because HTML5 is next HTML. Every single page on the web is HTML5. What you are saying doesn't make sense at all.

    You are just hating for hating with absolutely no sense.
    Reply
  • Bozzified - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    And there is a reason why many businesses even Youtube have not replaced Flash with HTML5 and only offer some content through HTML5 without all the features Flash version offers.

    They are ALL using Flash as the primary technology and HTML5 only for fallback for retarded iOS devices.
    Reply
  • mindless1 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    There is a reason for flash to continue, as the plugin and player at least, that there exists a huge amount of flash based animations, games, etc. that should not be made obsolete.

    I am against creating MORE, NEW flash animations but do want the existing ones to continue to function and do so on a broader array of hardware and exploit the features of that hardware.
    Reply
  • Bozzified - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    How is HTML5 superior.. I'd definitely like to hear your brilliant reasoning?

    There is NOTHING that HTML5 is better than Flash and I use both in many projects.

    Let's chat.. What is is that HTML5 does that's superior?

    Performance? NOPE.
    Mobile? NOPE
    Features and compatibly? NOPE.
    Creativity and tools? NOPE.

    Let's chat.. I'm really interested at people who are constantly full of hot air about this and that HTML5 to explain to me how exactly HTML5 is superior?

    Do you even know what HTML5 is? HTML5 is just the tags like video, audio, header, content etc etc..

    If you are thinking of interactivity, that's not HTML5, that's JS and most likely JQuery.

    So let's hear it.. what makes HTML5 better?
    Reply
  • semo - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    I was surprised too when Adobe started frequently updating Flash not long ago. Also adding features too! I still believed that 64-bit support was years away. Adobe seem to be turning around but I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they disappeared off the face of the earth Reply
  • captainBOB - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    It wasn't just Apple complaining, Mac OS X has been on the march to 64bit for years now and its nearing completion, Lion only runs in 64 bit mode now with 32bit compatibility.

    The same goes for Microsoft, Windows 8 is the last Windows OS to have a 32bit edition, from then on it will be 64bit edition or nothing, 32bit will obviously be retained for legacy support.
    Reply
  • Jambe - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Slightly tangential, but am I the only one who hasn't in stalled Silverlight?

    I've seen a few presentations (the majority of them Microsoft's) that required flash and whenever I saw the plugin request I just went "eh" and left.
    Reply
  • Jambe - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    * that required silverlight, rather Reply
  • webdev51 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Same here. I avoid Silverlight too. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    No, what's wrong with you? It even can install through Windows Update.

    Nothing wrong with Silverlight, and to be honest you barely every see it.
    Reply
  • slashbinslashbash - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    I'm very happy with Silverlight in comparison with Flash. And I'm a Mac user, mind you. The Mac version of Silverlight works great. If Silverlight replaced Flash 100%, I wouldn't mind it a bit. Reply
  • erple2 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    Nothing wrong with Silverlight, and to be honest you barely every see it


    Silverlight doesn't run on a Mobile device, or (reliably - moonlight is way too hit-or-miss to be consistent) on any Linux based OS's. That's what's wrong with it. You also used to not "see" Flash until whole sites were created through it, making them essentially unusable through certain browser combinations at the time.

    If you see mobile devices as the future, then that becomes a major problem. Until Microsoft works out how to make SIlverlight more agnostic, it's not going to take off beyond desktop share. Currently it only runs on Windows (not windows mobile) and Mac. But it ignores > 50% of the browser market.
    Reply
  • Scrogneugneu - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    Same here, never bothered. So far (apart from Microsoft's websites), I haven't found it to be something missing from my installed plugins. Reply
  • name99 - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    So THIS will finally be the version of Flash that doesn't suck? Great. I totally expect that Adobe will deliver.

    Meanwhile, in unrelated news, Charlie Brown perhaps you'd like to run up and kick this football?
    Reply
  • Aikouka - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    One of the biggest problems that I have with Flash right now (10.3) is that the updater isn't very good. The problem is that it only runs on Windows start up, so you either have to check whether there's an update manually or only get prompted upon start up. There are also two versions of Flash (ActiveX and the "other one"), and I'm not sure if they both update at the same time. Based on the download size always being ~2mb (which is the size of only one plug-in), I doubt they do.

    Thinking about it now, if it occurs on start up, I assume there's an entry for it. I should go look for it and create a shortcut to allow me to run it any time. That would at least make manual updating easier.

    Since flash vulnerabilities tend to be a pretty common attack method for malicious code, I'd like to see Flash be a bit more aggressive in its updating.
    Reply
  • Andrew.a.cunningham - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    I'd love to see Adobe move to a unified updater for its products already. Acrobat has one updater, Flash has another, the Creative Suite programs have another. Microsoft does it. Google does it. It's not so much to ask, really. Reply
  • fr33h33l - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    Granted, Apple was possibly the biggest reason for Adobe's recent improvements and them moving in the direction of HTML5.

    However, given Apple's business model of locking users into native iOS apps and ever stronger ties to their app store, they are definitely not one of the prominent companies driving HTML5 adoption.

    Although you have to applaud Steve Jobs for making it seem as if Apple actually cared about standards and openness in Apple's decision not to support Flash in iOS while all he wanted was 1) eliminating a serious threat to Apple's lock-in model on mobile devices and, possibly, 2) to improve battery life in said products.
    Reply
  • dfghdfshhh - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look

    http://www。benzlogo。com
    Reply
  • weiyy - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Welcome to http://www.proxy4biz。。,,,。。,。.com Reply
  • Euklide - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link

    There is no turning back: Flash player 11 with its hardware acceleration will change the face of the internet: The web will simply turn 3D. This will take some time, but in less than one year there will be many impressive and highly useful 3D websites (aside from game sites) that will give a new meaning to "web surfing"! The difficult part is to make good use of the third dimension -still an unexplored field for information visualization, interactivity and usability, so it will be a challenge for innovation and will boost these fields and therefore 3D interface evolution. In comparison, HTML5 is way too limited to compete.

    Of course Adobe (and Macromedia) should have done this 11+ years ago. They are dinosaurs, but at least, Flash is ONE consistent standard, instead of a multi-confusing, chaotic, semi-implemented, arbitrary, each-browser doing-its-thing, each-supporting-a-different-subset FAILED-standard as were HTML and Javascript for so many years! The browser developers have FAILED MISERABLY to make or obbey a single standard and this paranoia will continue with HTML5!

    Now Apple is a great company, but they should put the user (their customers) FIRST, not force them or limit them - this is a huge marketing mistake that they will most likely pay soon or later!

    In sort, I personally prefer to develop for ONE single standard that runs consistently across all browsers in 98% of PCs and (soon) in most mobile devices too. I don't want to fight each time with each browser's idiosygracy while chasing their miserable updates in daily basis! Users want consistency for piece of mind too.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now