Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Google Chrome to pack internal Flash, Adobe Reader plugins? Of course it is.
CNet's Larry Dignan calls this a rumor, but there's every reason to believe this is going to happen. For starters, Google and Adobe are important members of the Open Screen Project. Who else is involved in Open Screen? ARM and NVidia -- who will likely provide processors and GPUs for Chrome OS tablets and netbooks -- and HTC, who built the Nexus One and have been rumored to be building a Google Tablet. Apple, of course, declined the invitation to join OSP.
And let's not forget that both YouTube and VEVO are still largely Flash-powered. Yes, an HTML5 video player is available on some videos, but the quality is not nearly as good as their Flash counterparts. If Google wants smooth, full HD video from their sites on Chrome OS devices later this year, Flash will need to come along for the ride.
So Flash makes sense, but why Reader?
Internal support for PDF means, of course, that your Chrome OS device will be able to view PDF documents out-of-the-box, like the loads of freebies you can view via Google Books -- no app store required. It could also help mitigate one of the biggest attack vectors on Windows systems. By using an internal PDF plug-in and filtering content through its mighty sandbox, Chrome can offer protection from drive-by PDF exploits that other browsers currently can't.
It's also thought that using internal plug-ins instead of the NPAPI versions we use right now could bring added stability to Google Chrome. The command line switches to enable the internal plug-ins are already present in the Chromium source code, so it's really just a matter of time before this happens.
So what do you think? Is this welcome news, or does it make you cringe?
Comments
12
Subscribe to commentsMxxConMar 30th 2010 9:11AM
i don't mind for flash, but i definitely do not want acrobat reader builtin.
i'm perfectly happy with my standalone and lighting fast Foxit Reader. if Google wants to integrate pdf into their browser, they should do it through Google Docs like this http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://labs.google.com/papers/bigtable-osdi06.pdf
master811Mar 30th 2010 1:12PM
You are assuming that it's Reader they use for PDF, for all we know they have their own PDF solution they wil build in, not to mention the fact that reader would more or less treble or quadruple the existing Chrome installer size.
MxxConMar 30th 2010 4:04PM
what other solution?
there is no other than solution than Adobe Acrobat Reader.
i would sure hope it will be a more barebones version, not a plain installer. for that there's already Google Pack
master811Mar 30th 2010 4:29PM
erm there are numerous other PDF readers, just because Reader is the most popular doesn't mean it has to be used. Sumatra PDF comes to mind for one as it's light, fast and open, so no reason why google couldn't integrate it (from what I can tell).
MxxConMar 30th 2010 4:40PM
except if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that the announcement explicitly states that google is working with adobe to integrate flash and pdf.
if they wanted to use some other reader, they wouldn't bother talking to adobe.
Lee MathewsMar 30th 2010 4:42PM
Keep in mind, Adobe has most of the guts for both PDF and Flash freely available -- that's why there are so many 3rd-party PDF and SWF apps.
Google could very well piece together their own Acrobat Reader, but it'd be a heck of a lot easier with Adobe's help.
Level 5Mar 30th 2010 9:26AM
Unfortunately, the built-in Flash support means one thing; a better way for Google to do what Google does best, and that's advertising and searching. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, especially in the mobile world. I hate ads, and I'll often buy apps that have ad-free versions or use AdFree on my Android device to get rid of them. Advertising in general just irritates me so much, if I want to know about products, I'll search for them online.
AemonyMar 30th 2010 10:55AM
An internal PDF reader (as long as it isn't Adobe Reader) makes sense. But a internal Flash plugin...? Do not want.
KualaBeeMar 30th 2010 11:08AM
I for one advocate this. I maintain my family's computers and one of the things I worry about when I am gone for long periods oversees is security b/c of outdated flash plugin.
In fact I told them all to switch to chrome b/c Firefox's update mechanism sucks, and flash's update mechanism is even more horrendous. Techheads might not think of it as a big deal, but Chrome's automatic update mechanism is future. Set and forget.
mrickMar 30th 2010 1:18PM
Official post from Adobe about this:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/03/improved_flash_player_support.html
FelixApr 6th 2010 5:21PM
mrick said 1:18PM on 3-30-2010
Official post from Adobe about this:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/03/improved_flash_player_support.html
HY Tan's comments to the official Adobe post
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/03/improved_flash_player_support.html#comment-2165248
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/03/improved_flash_player_support.html#comment-2165275
are quite apt, and express frustrations with Adobe Flash that are similar to mine. And it appears that the latest version may not be the panacea we've been looking for, especially for lower-end platforms (such as those targeted for ChromeOS).
FxApr 6th 2010 5:14PM
I'm cringing big-time, because Adobe Flash is a huge resource hog on my Linux (Ubuntu) laptop. And given that I have a better CPU and more RAM than most low-end laptops and netbooks, I have major doubts about the wisdom of including Flash in ChromeOS (which is supposedly positioned for light-resource ARM and x86 systems).
An nVidia ION chipset might help performance-wise, but what about those inexpensive devices without it?