Talk:Adobe Flash Player/Archive 1

History Section Omissions

At some point between version 5 and 9, a compression option was added for Flash graphics. But there is no info on what version of flash player is required to play compressed flash files back. It would be great if this onfo could be added.HumanJHawkins (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

x86_64 alpha release

Adobe has released a 64-bit alpha version of flash player 10 for linuz since 17 november of this year (2008). It doesn't seem to be on the article. Sources:

• http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html
• http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5620144233.html
• http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/11/now_supporting_16_exabytes.html

Nando.sm (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this information is important because Flash Player has received many criticism because they haven't provided a 64 bit version.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KDesk (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Advertising language is used in the article:

• ...rapidly adapted to deliver...
• ...has since evolved to support...
• ...order-of-magnitude faster...
• ...making it a very attractive platform...

Section "Supported Platforms" misses the point that Flash is not supported on many platforms such as Linux PPC, *BSD and others. The Linux x86 version is not very mature and it is outdated (v7,0,61,0) (this may be true for other platforms too).

I disagree with "missing the point". Flash supports more platforms than any other runtime environment (to my knowledge). Additionally, we are talking about computer used to browse the web. To me, the only notable exception to the supported platform list is Linux x86 version of version 8, but this is a very small amount considering that generally speaking, these computers are servers and are not running browsers, and that Linux boxes running browsers would be a very small minority of web browsers indeed (unfortunately).

Perhaps "...very attractive platform..." is a poor choice of words, but Flash really is the most sensible platform for delivering cross-platform software.

"the most sensible platform for delivering cross-platform software." is purely POV, and Flash is not available for dozens of platforms (which is a fact, not a POV). --Lost Goblin 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the above discussion is missing the point. IMO, the reason this article sounds like advertising is because it considers only Macromedia's Flash player. There are several other flash players (see SWF#Players). We should redirect the page to Flash_Player, and treat all the players in the same article (even if the non-Macromedia sections are all stubs).

I've done edits to the article that I think will make it sounds less like an advertisement. Take a read through, do changes to parts that I may have missed and when we agree the article is neutral we can remove the {{advert}} tag. Also, about the article only including the Macromedia player, maybe we could make a template with links all the flash players? ( Davehard 11:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC) )

Just Wondering?

How is this advertising? Personally, I don't see this as an adversising medium and it seems like they're just listing some of the features of Flash. A couple adjectives don't make it a advertisement, the author was just trying to tell about some good qualities of Flash. So it can do things faster than other platforms similar to it. So what? I just don't see how these adjectives make an ad. --CherryT 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unverified claims

• Approximately 95% of PC's have some version of the Flash Player installed.

According to Macromedia Statistics, Flash is installed on about 90-95% of PCs.

- That's just impossible. Perhaps you mean 90% of windows desktop computers with an internet connection.

• New versions of Flash player typically take about a year to achieve 85% market penetration.

Community MX reports that it takes about 2 years for 85% market penetration.

• ... number of mobiles phones supporting Flash Lite increasing substantially year-by-year.

This one I got from a Macromedia rep. who cited statistics I can't recall.

• new ECMAScript scripting engine, order-of-magnitude faster

Agreed. Can't find any solid evidence.

What to do with that section? --83.171.165.163 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the links above, can we say only the last two are unverifiable? Maybe remove the last two, and update the top two, citing the links I've provided? Scott Arbeitman 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The references about flash player 10, currently number 8 in the list, are dead links (Thepillow (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

merge w/ Macromedia Flash

I would hazard a guess that this page would benifit greatly with merge of Macromedia Flash. Comments are welcomed begged for.

I disagree. Macromedia Flash is an authoring environment which generates binray SWF files that can be run in the Flash Player. It also can generate files unrelated to the Flash player, such as GIFs. Moreover, Flash is not the only such tool: Laszlo, Flex, Swift3D, Illustrator, and many many more also have a similar capability, i.e. to generate SWF files which run in the Flash player.

I also disagree. People are confused enough about the differences between the two already. At least this way it's clear that they aren't the same thing. 86.136.82.105 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. Flash and Flash Player are distinctly two different products. There are other products that target the Flash Player - it might be worthy to mention some of them.

I Disagree as per above Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Flash Player

This product is now called Adobe Flash Player, I just downloaded the latest version from adobe.com. See the versiontracker link for more info: [1] (note that the download link for macromedia.com does not work, change it to adobe with the same path and it works fine. Here is the download link: [2]) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, backtrack. Yes, I checked it out thoroughly and the beta is going to be rebranded Adobe. I changed the article to reflect that clearly. However, since the Wikipedia article is mainly about the official, released, supported, endorsed Flash Player and not the hacker beta, the title of the article needs to remain Macromedia Flash Player until an OFFICIAL version is released that is branded Adobe. The product is NOT "now called Adobe," as you said. The product is Macromedia. It WILL be Adobe in the near future, and the company has given us a preview of it, but it is incorrect to call the product "Adobe" yet. 68.148.168.84 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I concider the Macromedia Flash Player and the Adobe Flash Player the same thing. Also I move the Macromedia Flash Player to Adobe Flash Player to fix a double redirect.

The article contradicts its own title.

"Although Macromedia has been acquired by by Adobe, the software is still known as "Macromedia Flash Player", not "Adobe Flash Player", contrary to some speculation."

Well then why on earth is the article title 'Adobe Flash Player'? It's like an encyclopedia having an entry under 'Cotton War of 1823' that says 'Despite speculation to the contrary, the Cotton War actually occurred in 1805'.

Update: I checked on the download page [3], where ALL Macromedia products are still listed as Macromedia. The name has not yet been changed. Someone jumped the gun. I'm moving this article back. It's still Macromedia Flash Player.

Edit: The original reason for this move was the Beta page (http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/public_beta/). I read through this carefully. The only company reference is at the end, where it says "Thank you, The Adobe Flash Player Team". It seems to me one of two things might have happened: 1) The Team from Adobe that works on Flash thanks you for downloading the Flash Player. This is supported by the fact that everywhere else in the article the player is referred to as simply 'Flash Player'. In this case, the name change is not official. 2) The name has been changed to Adobe Flash Player in the beta. Even if this is the case, it seems to me that until the final product comes out, the name of the article at Wikipedia should not be changed because it is not yet official enough. It can certainly be mentioned, of course.

Any thoughts?

Arrenlex 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adobe Flash Player 9. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd paragraph

I am yanking this entire paragraph, because it seems completely out-of-place in this article:

(Paragraph in question is indented. My commentary is not.)

Flash Player is not without limitations.

Do you know of anything without limitations? This seems meaningless to me.

A standalone version of Flash Player is not provided by Macromedia; you must download the entire trial of Flash in order to get it.

What is meant by standalone version? Something that doesn't work in a browser? If this sentence is necessary, please put it somewhere else, clarify what is meant by standalone, and cite your source.

With Flash Player version 8 in particular, a number of users are reporting problems with installation and use.

Who are these users?

Hopefully, such problems will be fixed by the time Flash Player 9 is released.

Hopefully? How is this a NPOV?

4.242.147.26 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

25 Sept. 2006 Re. the name. Yesterday, while trying to install a program, the Internet Explorer asked if I wanted to install Active-X controls for the Adobe Flash Player. Maybe the official name has changed by now.

Obnoxious Flash Player Ads - Blocking

I view Adobe Flash Player as a vehicle for intrusive and obnoxious advertising. Should there be some discussion in this article about effective methods of blocking Flash Player ads ?

I think that is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, but more for a flash forum or flash tutorial website. //Offtopic: pls. sign comments with four times ~ between parenthesis. (Thepillow (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

There is a browser extension (addon) (not a plugin) for Firefox called Flashblock. It replaces every Flash object on a web page with a button. If you want to view that object, just press the button, otherwise the default is to not play the Flash animation.

Or you can do what I do and just delete Flash from your computer, unfortunately Apple keeps adding it back with every security upgrade, but I have an applescript to warn me when this happens, so I can delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is overkill. All you need to do is kill the Flash process after starting up the browser. If you want to see Flash just restart the browser. QuentinUK (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another useful solution is to use "Click to Plugin Safari extension", or ClickToFlash just for flash which allows you to use Flash when you need it and so extend the life of your battery considerably. http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/ QuentinUK (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Flash Player 9 and Internet Explorer

Internet explorer keeps crashing on games when using flash 9. adobe OBVIOUSLY doesn't like internet explorer since they made flash 9 incompatible with it. Any fixes? 82.12.86.64 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

player . exe?

Sorry for my lack of intellect, but what is the .exe file with which one opens .swf/.flv files? One would think it is flashplayer.exe or something related... (the windows search returns nothing).

Though it's a personal problem, I imagine others might also experience a similar difficulty.

You'll have better luck asking on Adobe's support forums, Google Groups, or somewhere similar. See also the FLV page. --Georgeryp 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

SWF also mentions "Adobe Flash Player, working either as a browser plugin or as a standalone player. " But the download page only installs the OCX ActiveX browser Plug-in for Internet Explorer! No file association for .swf files on disk or start menu shortcut or "C:\program files\" executable files !

Adobe Flash Player - Downloads links to Download the Windows Flash Player 9 Projector content debugger which does the trick for me ! There is also a zipped archive of older versions, (and the current one) but that also seems to just be the plug-in !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

problems

I thought we could add a paragraph about how there is a quictime symbol with a question mark. I've installed it and it still pops up on google video should we put a paragraph Jamesjack 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like quicktime plug-in is trying to play a .flv flash video file ? That sounds more like a problem caused by Apple Quicktime Player, rather than Adobe Flash, although re-installing Flash player might fix it ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NO AUDIO IN FLASH SITES SUCH AS YOUTUBE OR MYSPACE Many Windows XP, Internet Explorer and Firefox users have experienced audio problems after installing Adobe Flash Player 9. Adobe has not fixed this problem as of 10 March 2007. However a solution that solves the problem for many was published in this forum by the user Gilhooley:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?forumid=44&catid=184&threadid=1175007&enterthread=y

BilalM summarized the instructions as follows:

1. Open registry editor by going to Start menu, Run, typing regedit and then Enter. 2. In the registry editor, navigate through the tree in the left pane til you reach My Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Drivers32 4. On the right pane, right click and click on New, select String value, enter "wavemapper" (without quotes of course), ENTER, type "msacm32.drv", ENTER. 5. Close the editor. No need to restart. Open IE and test Video on MySpace or YouTube.

Flynninthebin 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Flynninthebin

As of the new version, 9.0 ... Haven't tried a windows box, but mac users if they are having problems should "repair disk premissions" in thier 'disk utility' under the 'utilities' folder in the 'applications' folder. 69.76.192.18 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (ps., after I did that and installed ... it ran fine ... )

Need information about how this is licensed...!

I want to know if adobe flash player if free/libre software or not. Also are there any issues in this being licensed the current way it is being licensed?--deostroll (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

Anyone else think that the screenshot was totally unnecessary? It didn't seem to add much to the article besides blank space and a dialogue window. I think that the screenshot actually took away from the article, instead of aiding it? Agree? Disagree? _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is a picture that doesn't say anything. (Thepillow (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Built-in Flash Player?

"The Flash Player is built into some browsers" but not the four important ones, so which browsers are meant here? -- Darklock (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought a version of it came with Explorer and Safari. I could be wrong, though. Either way, almost all swf-presenting sites will forward you to install flash player if it's not installed, and I haven't heard of any modern browser that doesn't support it. Masquatto (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gets on my nerves with Fire-freaking-fox

When I attempt to install Flash Player on Mozilla Firefox, it tells me to close down the browser before installation, (which I do), but it STILL says to close down Firefox even though it's closed. That problem doesn't seem to occur with IE or Safari, though. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem lies in that the process is still running, bring up your task manager and close out firefox.exe 71.211.116.126 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, it actually worked. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No Criticisms = Bias?

Seems every other software product has criticisms, but not this Adobe product. Even if you look at the competing Silverlight, it is quite a few of them listed.

How about the fact that some sort of 64 Bit version of Windows has been around since 2001, but yet there is still no 64 bit version of Flash. How about security issues, compatability problems....etc., etc., etc.

how about the fact that browser get slow and instable if flash is enabled! mabdul 11:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well considering there are like 100s of legit and verified criticism all over the web including Adobe's own forum this reeks of being a slightly tweaked version of the product release info. What types of things can I be talking about? I must go to work, but considering this page was in my history as I had some beef against Flash screwing up my browser usage last day I will rattle off a few:

Criticisms Missing

1) Crashworthy=Buggy and responsible for many or most of browser crashes.

2) Bloated=Requires to many system or hardware resources for simple things and seems to beat M$ for building code on code on code.

3) Website Design & Browsing=Violates all web standards in practice, creates interfaces that make browsing impossible for the blind beyond the pain it causes the seeing persons. Information is almost impossible to catalog by design. Abuse or overuse by ads that dominate the interface or screen.

4)Security & Privacy=Pretty much hackers choice now as along with poor website design the create easy vectors for every type of attack like XSS known to man and then some new ones along with the Flash Cookie backdoor and system hijacking abilities.

Sources = Apple, Ipad, Steve Jobs, 90% of the web population, HTML WC3 standards committee, etc. Here is a few links...get 1000s with a simple web search

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

--Thehighlndr (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Supported versions

It would be useful to include the dates that official support for the various versions ends. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Privacy section proposal

{{Request edit}} Hi,

I would like to propose the following update to the section of this article currently labeled "Internet Privacy/Persistent Identification Elements". The section in particular doesn't seem well-written, with redundancies and incorrect information, and it doesn't seem to try to maintain an NPV. Also, specifically, it makes reference to a claimed attack (regarding Visual Basic Script) that we have seen no evidence of. Although this statement has been on this page for over three years after being posted by an anonymous user, we have yet to receive any technical reports demonstrating that the claimed attack is possible. Unless a reliable source for this statement can be found, we consider it factually incorrect and respectfully request that it be removed. We propose that a reliable source for a security vulnerability would be a CVE number or other industry-standard vulnerability identifier.

The integrity of any Wikipedia article is important to us, so I want to take care to avoid any perceived conflict of interest and would like to submit the following proposed edit for the section for review. I've tried to model it after similar Wikipedia articles on web browsers, HTTP Cookies, and Web Storage, but would gladly appreciate any additional feedback or suggestions.

Thanks very much for your help and time.

Cheers, Tom Nguyen Product Manager, Adobe Flash Player

==Privacy==

See also: Local Shared Object

Flash Player supports persistent local storage of data (also referred to as local shared objects), which can be used similarly to HTTP cookies or Web Storage in web applications. Local storage in Flash Player allows websites to store non-executable data on a user's computer, such as authentication information, game high scores or saved games, server-based session identifiers, site preferences, saved work, or temporary files. Flash Player will only allow content originating from the exact same website domain to access data saved in local storage.

Because local storage can be used to save information on a computer that is later retrieved by the same site, a site can use it to gather user statistics, similar to how HTTP cookies and Web Storage can be used. With such technologies, the possibility of building a profile based on user statistics is considered by some a potential privacy concern. Users can disable or restrict use of local storage in Flash Player through a web-based "Settings Manager" page. These settings can be accessed from the Adobe website or by right-clicking on Flash -based content and selecting "Global Settings..."

Local storage can be disabled entirely or on a site-by-site basis. Disabling local storage will block any content from saving local user information using Flash Player, but this may disable or reduce the functionality of some websites, such as saved preferences or high scores and saved progress in games. Beginning with Flash Player 10.1, Flash Player supports the privacy mode settings in the latest versions of the Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari web browsers, such that no local storage data is saved when the browser's privacy mode is in use.

--Tom Nguyen (Adobe) (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of comments on this request in the past 52+ hours, I have implemented it in this edit, although I question the poster's removal of references to "Persistent Identification Elements (PIEs)".   — Jeff G. ツ 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done SpigotMap 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

file types played?

Rtdrury (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Adobe Flash Player 10.2 Square release supports x64 browsers on Windows and Mac

It would be nice to notice in article that Adobe released x64 test releases that run in 64-bit editions of IE7, IE8, IE9 and Firefox on Windows x64 and Safari on Mac OS X for x64 platform.

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.202.102 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Standalone version of Flash Player?

The article states that Flash Player is available as a plug-in for web browsers. However, looks like there is a standalone version of player available. Here is a screenshot of what I saw this on multiple computers:

Screenshot (on Windows Live SkyDrive)

The article says nothing about a standalone player. Fleet Command (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. :) 80.191.138.163 (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove Microsoft Silverlight

Get rid of Microsoft Silverlight from the "See Also" section,

Microsoft Silverlight has nothing to do with flash. It's about as similar to it as Java Applets or JavaFx.

Alternatively, you may consider adding a new Similar Technologies Sections and jam Java Applets/JavaFx, ActiveX, and other browser plugins in there but keep in mind Chrome has integrated Flash. So what makes a plugin? huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.229.41 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Silverlight and Flash are orders of magnitude more similar than JavaFX, Java Runtime, ActiveX or any other arbitrary piece of software plug-in placed in a web page. In fact, Silverlight is the only competitor for Adobe Flash. Fleet Command (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

I do not have notes on hand, but should additional criticisms be added to the criticisms section outside of comments from Steve Jobs? I will research this more as I have time but I believe there is a broader scope for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.234.169 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you browse the Adobe forums and similar sites you will find a very large number of members of the web community have been having a torrid time trying to download and install successfully this latest version. Various, more or less complicated, fixes have been produced which the average user, such as myself, should not have to 'wade' through in order to get video etc. to work. Why are the manufacturers not at work trying to speedily shoot down these problems. Very diappointing response from such an eminent software producer! Geoff Powers (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple controversy

I wrote the Apple controversy section. Someone pointed out that "its like a sales pitch". I'm not selling flash, just placing Jobs' claims in a bullet format, and countering them with the FACTS as necessary. I've reverted it back to the original. If you cannot ADD anything to it then for heavens sake stop deleting it. It took some time to collect all that info in one place. There are many facts that prove that what Jobs claims is anywhere from twisted truth to outright lies. That's what I intend to prove with the section.

I'm not making it up, in fact I've got references for EVERY point. Just because a certain subset of anti-Flash wikipedians don't "like" the section doesn't mean you can delete it outright. Feel free to add points proving what Jobs said is TRUE. I'm fine with that, if you have references. Jobs simply makes statements in the air and you expect us to believe it? Give us stats and you can cite that add add statements into the section. Don't delete it just because you don't agree with the contents. Lets take every point and break it down if you have the courage to argue your point.

• Openness -- Apple uses H.264 and other closed standards. Is QuickTime open? And a large portion of Flash Player IS open.
• Access -- You can't play ANY flash content on the iPhone. Is that inaccessible enough?
• Security -- Jobs statement is a lie and Symantec proves it.
• Performance -- Flash is used to render UI on phones. It "performs badly"? Then why would OEM's choose it?

-- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 12:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I improved the neutrality of the section trying to keep the points there, and letting readers come to their own conclusions. Tell me how to IMPROVE it but do not delete it outright.

-- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BlushNine (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Did you forget to mention Flash was rank#2 of Top Attacked Vulnerabilities on page 10 of that same Symantec report?

Sorry I didn't read the report. Add whatever you want into the section. --- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 15:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Version #

Right clicking on some flash player content in my computer bring up menu. The first line: Version 5.5.2. Next lines are quality, stetting, global setting and the last line is: About Adobe Flash Player 11.1.102.55. This is what is hear and on Adobe web site referred as version #. I was hoping to find in Wikipedia, what the version # on top of the menu mean. Will anybody enlight me?

Jatvart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.182 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ for all version numbers. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)