Adobe Releases Last Linux Version Of Flash Player(ubuntuvibes.com)
ubuntuvibes.com
Adobe Releases Last Linux Version Of Flash Player
http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/03/adobe-releases-last-linux-version-of.html
73 comments
Well, I think they can make (and they probably already have it) a snazzy editor/creator to generate HTML5
Yes: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/
Yes: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/
Since there are so many mobile devices and so many of them are iPhones, anyone building websites will try to steer away from using Flash. So Flash is dying, fast.
I'll call out Steve Jobs on this one. Another good one!
The best they could have done is to completely open source it...frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on.
"Incumbent" is a temporary state. "Leader" is a decoration that is assigned dynamically. You stay a leader by siphoning potential energy off of the commoditization of your current golden goose, to set up your next one.
Oh, and open standards trump proprietary defacto standards in the end. Ask Microsoft about that one. (And Apple: pay attention!)
I'll call out Steve Jobs on this one. Another good one!
The best they could have done is to completely open source it...frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on.
"Incumbent" is a temporary state. "Leader" is a decoration that is assigned dynamically. You stay a leader by siphoning potential energy off of the commoditization of your current golden goose, to set up your next one.
Oh, and open standards trump proprietary defacto standards in the end. Ask Microsoft about that one. (And Apple: pay attention!)
I don't think Steve Jobs necessarily is responsible for this, but that he was aware that it was going to happen. If the iPhone had shipped with a poor implementation of Flash, which was all Adobe was capable of delivering, Flash would still eventually die off. Jobs was just aware that it was worth the sacrifice of political capital to do away with Flash, since in a few years it would be a moot feature.
Apple had a big hand in this, Whilst there was plenty of negative sentiment towards flash before the iPhone etc I don't remember too many people talking about killing it.
Indeed many website owners liked having flash content on their site, it is only in the last few years that developers can point to a growing and lucrative demographic or users/devices that can't consume flash content.
Indeed many website owners liked having flash content on their site, it is only in the last few years that developers can point to a growing and lucrative demographic or users/devices that can't consume flash content.
I think it was the hard work of those who made browsers a viable alternative to Flash more than Steve Jobs' nyet. Without their work, not even the mighty Apple could have said no to Flash forever. But still, it was a good call by Steve Jobs, no doubt about that.
It's worth pointing out that a considerable number of the people who did that hard work were on Jobs payroll.
What open standards should Apple be paying attention to that you don't think they are?
He didn't say that.
I think 'pay attention' in the parents' post refers to the stated notion that open standards trump proprietary ones in the end. Parent thinks Apple should pay attention to this notion.
'pay attention' does /not/ refer to the open standards themselves, to which Apple /does/ pay attention. Oh, they do, they do, very much so. For instance, by sabotaging attempts to make Ogg Vorbis the standard for the HTML5 <audio>-tag.
'pay attention' does /not/ refer to the open standards themselves, to which Apple /does/ pay attention. Oh, they do, they do, very much so. For instance, by sabotaging attempts to make Ogg Vorbis the standard for the HTML5 <audio>-tag.
Are you saying that you think that Ogg Vorbis will trump the other audio standards in the end?
Yes, that would make the most sense.
There are plenty of designers who like to use flash because they are familiar with the toolset, what they need is to use the same tools with a different output format.
Of course the killer app that is missing from HTMl5/JS seems to support for stuff like webcams/mics and being able to stream in realtime. That and of course Internet Explorer staying years behind everyone else.
There are plenty of designers who like to use flash because they are familiar with the toolset, what they need is to use the same tools with a different output format.
Of course the killer app that is missing from HTMl5/JS seems to support for stuff like webcams/mics and being able to stream in realtime. That and of course Internet Explorer staying years behind everyone else.
Hopefully Mozilla's WebAPI[1] will bring us those.
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
WebRTC http://www.webrtc.org/ is there and is already baked into the latest development version of Chrome. We are talking realtime streaming audio & video. I think, in theory, that is the last puzzle peace that would create a pattern which will open the gates of hell and swallow Flash (metaphorically speaking).
I cannot see how they can be serious about Flash if they are going to ignore Linux.
It makes sense from Adobe's point of view, because the adoption on Linux is minimal, but for someone creating content on flash (for example - for video, games, or even some old school websites), this is just making it harder. Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform.
Adobe might as well say that Flash is done on all platforms.
Note: I am not taking sides, if Flash is good/bad but just trying to argue that if Adobe wants their Flash platform to be taken seriously on Windows/Mac, they really cannot ignore Linux this way.
It makes sense from Adobe's point of view, because the adoption on Linux is minimal, but for someone creating content on flash (for example - for video, games, or even some old school websites), this is just making it harder. Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform.
Adobe might as well say that Flash is done on all platforms.
Note: I am not taking sides, if Flash is good/bad but just trying to argue that if Adobe wants their Flash platform to be taken seriously on Windows/Mac, they really cannot ignore Linux this way.
"Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform."
The sort of content creators who care about this (ie good ones) already had to worry about the tens of millions of ios devices out there. Linux is barely a blip on the content consumption radar
The sort of content creators who care about this (ie good ones) already had to worry about the tens of millions of ios devices out there. Linux is barely a blip on the content consumption radar
Flash on linux has always been bugging and CPU inefficient..
Yes, but if this is an admit of defeat by Adobe's engineering (like how to some extent you can say it was on Tablet/phone platform), it just is a bad sign for them.
What as a consumer of flash platform I need form Adobe is clarity and commitment. Today I see it has gone another step backward. Just reinforces the public opinion of wanting to move away from Flash even more.
What as a consumer of flash platform I need form Adobe is clarity and commitment. Today I see it has gone another step backward. Just reinforces the public opinion of wanting to move away from Flash even more.
Big picture they are trying to kill flash! I just don't think that this particular story is that big of a deal because it really only affects linux firefox users. So it's sort of a neat way to for them to re-prioritize on maintaining a product that they anticipate deprecating in the long run.
I think as an outsider to Adobe, logic dictates what you say. But here is Adobe's thoughts on Flash and their platform: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/articles/recent-up....
The section on Flash player for desktop does say they are keen on making it better, especially with on the multimedia front (I have to admit there are some pain points they do solve for multimedia). Nevertheless, I am with you in predicting that this is a sure sign of their slow but sure move towards killing it. I just hope people read it faster than we can and not pour money on building flash based solutions. (A lot of enterprise still use flash).
The section on Flash player for desktop does say they are keen on making it better, especially with on the multimedia front (I have to admit there are some pain points they do solve for multimedia). Nevertheless, I am with you in predicting that this is a sure sign of their slow but sure move towards killing it. I just hope people read it faster than we can and not pour money on building flash based solutions. (A lot of enterprise still use flash).
How does it only affect linux firefox users? I think you're right about Adobe's motives, but it certainly affects any linux browser that could use libflashplayer, no? Ie Chrom*, Opera..
They're dropping the NPAPI (Netscape Plugin API) version on Linux.
Chrome currently ships with both an NPAPI version of Flash, and a PPAPI (Pepper - basically a replacement plugin API developed by Google, as an offshoot of NaCl) version. The PPAPI version will still be updated, so when the next version of Flash comes out, Chrome will just use the PPAPI version.
But the PPAPI version will only be shipped with Chrome, and only Chrome / Chromium support PPAPI plugins. Any Linux users using any browser other than Chrome will basically be out of luck.
Chrome currently ships with both an NPAPI version of Flash, and a PPAPI (Pepper - basically a replacement plugin API developed by Google, as an offshoot of NaCl) version. The PPAPI version will still be updated, so when the next version of Flash comes out, Chrome will just use the PPAPI version.
But the PPAPI version will only be shipped with Chrome, and only Chrome / Chromium support PPAPI plugins. Any Linux users using any browser other than Chrome will basically be out of luck.
When evaluating the bugginess of Flash on Linux, consider that Adobe was releasing a single libflashplayer.so with binary compatibility for a variety of Linux distros compiled with different versions of gcc, with different library versions, ALSA or OSS audio APIs, buggy OpenGL drivers, and NPAPIs for multiple versions of Firefox and Chrome browsers. And the Flash Player codebase dates back to FutureSplash circa 1993-1995. Developing "consumer" software for Linux is a challenging (and expensive) proposition.
Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform.
I don't thing many content creators worry that much about clients on the Linux platform.
Some don't even care about OS X clients (like those that rushed to adopt Silverlight back in the day), and that platform has 10x the Linux desktop share.
I don't thing many content creators worry that much about clients on the Linux platform.
Some don't even care about OS X clients (like those that rushed to adopt Silverlight back in the day), and that platform has 10x the Linux desktop share.
Adobe fails to make any headlines that indicate they have any clue at all
Well, on the positive side all the reviews for the new Photoshop CS6 have been quite glowing. A major new version, indeed.
Lightroom 4 was also a very good update.
Oh, and Premiere is in the right track.
Killing Flash is best for Adobe in the long term. That, more refinement for their CS suite, and some new HTML5 tools like Edge will keep them afloat for many years to come.
Lightroom 4 was also a very good update.
Oh, and Premiere is in the right track.
Killing Flash is best for Adobe in the long term. That, more refinement for their CS suite, and some new HTML5 tools like Edge will keep them afloat for many years to come.
With every new edition of Adobe products we get more posts on http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ to enjoy :)
It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product. I'm sure that the engineers working on it are great, but the infamous rant against PSD (responded to here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the...) underlines the fact that Adobe isn't exactly a shining beacon of software engineering, and the user-facing problems are indicative of what is probably a large, underlying code complexity issue. If the document format evolves "organically", what does that say about the code that reads the document? Just think--how would you like it if JSON were "organic"? Structured code is good, organic not so much.
>It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product.
It doesn't have to be perfect inside to be an amazing product. People could care less about how PSD is structured or if the code is a spaghetti mess. The organic growth is also inevitable when you have something that evolved over 20+ years and want to keep backward compatibility as much as you can --including with tons of external third party tools. It's not like they are idiots and can't get it right if they are given the chance to do it from scratch.
The thing it: it works, it works great, and nothing compares to it in it's field.
For the actual graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, etc that use it, there is no alternative that is as capable. There is also no alternative that can be integrated with a full ecosystem of products, from TV/Cinema work (Premiere) to print work (InDesign/Acrobat), to Web (Flash/Edge/Fireworks), to Vector (Illustrator), with all being leaders (or almost) in their particular field.
I'm talking for professional workflows. For just getting some pics up to a webpage, without any chance of it be used in other contexts, YMMV.
Compared to GIMP for example, there are tons of stuff that make it better for a professional workflow. From better text support, to a complete RAW file import/edit support, to a complete (and working for years before Gimp got any) CMYK support with gamut warnings and the whole kitchen sync, to Smart Objects, to vector support, etc.
Though, latest releases and transitions (like to 64bit Win/Mac, to Cocoa, to the new UI etc), seem to have given Adobe also chances to rework parts of the code.
It doesn't have to be perfect inside to be an amazing product. People could care less about how PSD is structured or if the code is a spaghetti mess. The organic growth is also inevitable when you have something that evolved over 20+ years and want to keep backward compatibility as much as you can --including with tons of external third party tools. It's not like they are idiots and can't get it right if they are given the chance to do it from scratch.
The thing it: it works, it works great, and nothing compares to it in it's field.
For the actual graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, etc that use it, there is no alternative that is as capable. There is also no alternative that can be integrated with a full ecosystem of products, from TV/Cinema work (Premiere) to print work (InDesign/Acrobat), to Web (Flash/Edge/Fireworks), to Vector (Illustrator), with all being leaders (or almost) in their particular field.
I'm talking for professional workflows. For just getting some pics up to a webpage, without any chance of it be used in other contexts, YMMV.
Compared to GIMP for example, there are tons of stuff that make it better for a professional workflow. From better text support, to a complete RAW file import/edit support, to a complete (and working for years before Gimp got any) CMYK support with gamut warnings and the whole kitchen sync, to Smart Objects, to vector support, etc.
Though, latest releases and transitions (like to 64bit Win/Mac, to Cocoa, to the new UI etc), seem to have given Adobe also chances to rework parts of the code.
On the plus side, this move will push more people to replace Flash with other technologies and I may never have to use it again. It's been consistently the buggiest piece of software on my computer for years. I won't be sad to see it go.
I hope the bitrot doesn't happen as fast this time as it did the last time they dropped support for the Flash version of Linux. The last time they did this, it was right before everyone starting using ALSA, so we were stuck using Flash with horribly broken audio for a long time.
I have uninstalled flash player on all my machines. If its flash and has no h264 fallback its probably not a video worth seeing anyway.
Just Do It.
Just Do It.
Good riddance?
So, what does flash actually run on these days?
Windows desktop PCs & laptops, on Mac desktops & laptops (for how much longer?) and that's about it.
Well , looks like everyone should sharpen up those JS skills.
Windows desktop PCs & laptops, on Mac desktops & laptops (for how much longer?) and that's about it.
Well , looks like everyone should sharpen up those JS skills.
Well, the flash compiles to iOS binaries and I know at least one successful company who saved a ton because they didn't need a Cocoa programmer.
It seems that their strategy is to depreciate Flash Player and focus on compiling for js/iOS/whatever.
It seems that their strategy is to depreciate Flash Player and focus on compiling for js/iOS/whatever.
You do realize that those clients represent ~89% of all web usage, right?
That may well be true right now but of course we are in a time of transition right now and Adobe seems to be burning rather too many bridges.
If adobe wanted their runtime to survive (I'm not sure they do) they would be showing commitment to supporting their runtime in as many places as possible.
Right now the only place it really runs well is on Windows which means they are quite firmly shackled to Microsoft and it's not even clear that MS see flash as part of their vision for their products.
If adobe wanted their runtime to survive (I'm not sure they do) they would be showing commitment to supporting their runtime in as many places as possible.
Right now the only place it really runs well is on Windows which means they are quite firmly shackled to Microsoft and it's not even clear that MS see flash as part of their vision for their products.
I think it's pretty clear MS does not, since Flash doesn't work on IE 10 on Windows 8 using the default UI (Metro).
My guess is that Adobe has given up on the runtime and is cutting costs while investing in the authoring tools (which is where they make their money anyway) for HTML5.
My guess is that Adobe has given up on the runtime and is cutting costs while investing in the authoring tools (which is where they make their money anyway) for HTML5.
...~89% of all web usage NOW (I'm not sure about the number though, but it seems legit and I take your word for it).
What about 2 years from now?
What about 2 years from now?
Really, all smartphones, all tablets, all Linux is only 11%? I'm very doubtful and won't believe it without citation.
The number is from StatCounter: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-2011...
That does seem surprisingly low, but let's assume it is that correct.
According to stat counter , mobile usage in Jan 2010 was 1.56%, by Dec 2010 it was 4.1%. By Feb 2012 8.53%.
That's an astonishing growth to have roughly doubled in a year. Although the growth proportionally is less than in 2010 which might suggest that there is some slow down.
Big companies like adobe need to plan for the long term, even if "mobile" peaks at 30% + all the people running Windows 8 using Metro + all the Linux users.
That's certainly a big enough base of non-flashers for any web developer to seriously think twice about using it for anything.
According to stat counter , mobile usage in Jan 2010 was 1.56%, by Dec 2010 it was 4.1%. By Feb 2012 8.53%.
That's an astonishing growth to have roughly doubled in a year. Although the growth proportionally is less than in 2010 which might suggest that there is some slow down.
Big companies like adobe need to plan for the long term, even if "mobile" peaks at 30% + all the people running Windows 8 using Metro + all the Linux users.
That's certainly a big enough base of non-flashers for any web developer to seriously think twice about using it for anything.
"Web usage", as a percentage, usually means "site visits", not "web users" or "devices".
Most people do not own tablets, outside of pretty narrow demographics. Most people who have a smartphone do way less browsing on it, by number of site visits, than they do on their computer.
Most people do not own tablets, outside of pretty narrow demographics. Most people who have a smartphone do way less browsing on it, by number of site visits, than they do on their computer.
It runs in desktop web browsers on Windows, Mac and Linux (soon only hosted in Chrome, but it will be there). It runs on iOS, MacOS, Windows, Android and Blackberry with Adobe Air and it's far better, faster and easier to develop for than any Javascript/HTML5 alternative. If you want to get a clue about how is Flash doing lately, just browse Flash Daily from time to time.
[1] http://flashdaily.net
[1] http://flashdaily.net
It doesn't run on iOS , the version for android/blackberry is declared dead. Windows 8 will only support it in it's legacy "desktop" mode, it's shrinking to one browser under Linux and somehow I doubt Apple wants to keep in running under OS X for any longer than they have to.
Flash RUNS on iOS/Android/Blackberry, there are a lot of Flash apps on all those platforms, including best selling ones[1]. Adobe just discontinued the mobile version of the Flash browser plugin, but what you don't understand is that with the launch of Adobe Air, Flash is no longer tied to the browser plugin. It's kind of irrelevant what Apple pontificates next or what Microsoft decides to support themselves in Metro, Air apps written in Flash will continue to come to iOS, MacOS, Windows 8 etc because it's the best and easiest way to develop cross platform applications. JS/HTML5 is not even close in performance, capabilities, ease of development or consistency (I'd like to see someone do anything as cool as this[2] with JS/HTML5 on mobiles), the only thing that comes close to Air right now is .Net/Mono (with MonoTouch and MonoDroid).
[1]http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/09/flash-based-mac...
[2] http://blogs.aerys.in/jeanmarc-leroux/2012/02/02/air-3-2-sta...
[1]http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/09/flash-based-mac...
[2] http://blogs.aerys.in/jeanmarc-leroux/2012/02/02/air-3-2-sta...
I think it runs on iOS in the sense that they have a tool to statically compile Flash into a standalone iOS app.
Would have been more appropriate to release it tomorrow.
Would be interesting if they could release the player as OS
You know, it just occurred to me.
One benefit of Adobe abandoning Flash in the medium-term, will be a push for improvements on the functionality and speed of SVG.
Google (Chrome) seems to mostly care about the canvas, re acceleration and all, whereas Adobe has much more interest in SVG because it needs it as a vector replacement for Flash.
Case in point, this just came in today: http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations...
One benefit of Adobe abandoning Flash in the medium-term, will be a push for improvements on the functionality and speed of SVG.
Google (Chrome) seems to mostly care about the canvas, re acceleration and all, whereas Adobe has much more interest in SVG because it needs it as a vector replacement for Flash.
Case in point, this just came in today: http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations...
Been working in flash since version 2 and years ago I wrote a 3d engine in flash mx by duplicating and scaling right angled triangles to draw all the polygons. Professionally, I am often the person who recommends what technologies get used when a site gets made.
And I very much doubt with this recent news from adobe that I will bother to use flash for a commercial project ever again. Especially given what you can get canvas tags to do these days.
And I very much doubt with this recent news from adobe that I will bother to use flash for a commercial project ever again. Especially given what you can get canvas tags to do these days.
That's nice of you, but honestly I doubt this will have a very big impact.
Flash support has been poor on Linux for a very long time. For example, 64-bit Linux desktops have been popular for most of the last decade, and I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release. Sure, it's been possible to get it working, but it's a hassle. The poor Linux support is one of the main reasons so many Linux users dislike Flash and are always saying how it needs an open source alternative version.
Since Linux support has never been a big deal for people choosing Flash in the past, I can't see this having a big impact on their decisions now.
Flash support has been poor on Linux for a very long time. For example, 64-bit Linux desktops have been popular for most of the last decade, and I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release. Sure, it's been possible to get it working, but it's a hassle. The poor Linux support is one of the main reasons so many Linux users dislike Flash and are always saying how it needs an open source alternative version.
Since Linux support has never been a big deal for people choosing Flash in the past, I can't see this having a big impact on their decisions now.
FYI: Flash for 64bit linux has existed for a while now. The first release was sometime around the financial crisi, I think october of 2008.
Yeah, I know it exists. And before it existed you could hack up the 32-bit Flash to work in 64-bit browsers.
The point is, it being a PITA to use Flash on Linux never stopped many developers from creating pages that required it, so it's unlikely to stop them from creating Flash pages now.
The point is, it being a PITA to use Flash on Linux never stopped many developers from creating pages that required it, so it's unlikely to stop them from creating Flash pages now.
You said "I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release" when there has been an official release for a while now. So you can understand why I might have thought you did not know an official release existed?
It has not been a pain in the ass on amd64 since the fall of 2008.
It has not been a pain in the ass on amd64 since the fall of 2008.
Is a trajectory issue. When flash was expanding the range of systems it could be run on, then the future looked rosy for it as a delivery platform.
Currently however it seems to be contracting on all fronts, while at the same time adobe is making life more difficult for the developers by giving them extra costs. So the trajectory really does not look good at this point.
Currently however it seems to be contracting on all fronts, while at the same time adobe is making life more difficult for the developers by giving them extra costs. So the trajectory really does not look good at this point.
That's true, when I started using Linux there was no flash support at all, literally nothing.
That did not stop large numbers of sites being built around it though.
That did not stop large numbers of sites being built around it though.
[deleted]
Thats a huge F* Y to a large customer base.
If only wishing made it so. I would love it if that was the case but sadly linux users running firefox, epiphany, etc are not a large base of anything and certainly not a large paying customer base....
How are Linux desktop users a "customer" base?
For one, they are a very small niche. All "web stats" reports (the most accurate way of measuring such things) put them somewhere around 1%.
Plus, they are not paying for Flash. Flash, the paid-for tool, doesn't even run on Linux.
For one, they are a very small niche. All "web stats" reports (the most accurate way of measuring such things) put them somewhere around 1%.
Plus, they are not paying for Flash. Flash, the paid-for tool, doesn't even run on Linux.
1% = millions of users. Out of that 1% comes a significant portion of the people who run the sites that serve flash content.
Those sites serve Flash content to non-Linux desktops over Linux ones by a huge margin, like 99% to 1%.
And merely serving Flash doesn't mean you are an Adobe customer. The guy that writes the Flash content in Adobe Flash (in a Mac or a Windows PC) is their customer.
And merely serving Flash doesn't mean you are an Adobe customer. The guy that writes the Flash content in Adobe Flash (in a Mac or a Windows PC) is their customer.
They're dropping support for firefox for linux it seems and will maintain support for chrome through their pepper api. Also they will maintain the latest binary release of flash for linux by pushing security patches. If anything they're dropping support for firefox and derivatives for linux and keeping support for chrome. But who uses firefox these days anyways?
"But who uses firefox these days anyways?"
I am writing this reply from within Firefox.
I am writing this reply from within Firefox.
Okay thanks for the downvote, astine. I was making a general point about its market share http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/chrome-vs-firefox-g...
As far as I can tell from the communication coming out of Adobe and Google, Adobe is dropping support for Linux, period. _Google_ will be maintaining Flash for Chrome on Linux. Which they largely have been anyway, as far as I can tell; they certainly haven't been shipping vanilla unmodified Flash (as you can tell by the fact that the version numbers of what they ship with Chrome don't match the official Adobe releases).
The best they could have done is to completely open source it. Open source the spec fully, the players and the server. But even then, frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on.
It was interesting how in the WebRTC discussion they were absent. Google was there, Ericsson, but not them. They could have clearly provided some input or helped out with insight since they had a similar product for so many years.
They thought they would build a web platform and rule the world, but I think they failed in that.
What can they do? Well, I think they can make (and they probably already have it) a snazzy editor/creator to generate HTML5, javascript that would work with WebRTC, WebGL, etc.