Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
It's Apple vs. Adobe again over Flash Player in OS X 10.6.4 update
Apple and Adobe have been duking it out very publicly over Apple's anti-Flash stance, and the latest update to Apple's OS X, 10.6.4, just added fuel to the fire. The update comes with a version of Flash that Adobe says is outdated and insecure. Apple's release notes for 10.6.4 say that it fixes "
multiple issues in the Adobe Flash Player plug-in, the the most serious of which may lead to unauthorised cross-domain requests."Adobe says the packaged version of Flash player, 10.0.45.2, is NOT the most secure, and that users are leaving themselves open to vulnerabilities if they don't upgrade to the latest version, 10.1.53.64. Flash Player 10.1 just recently came out of beta, so Apple was likely playing it safe by including a version of Flash that's known to function on Macs. The 10.1 beta was enormously buggy, in my experience, causing me to uninstall and downgrade to 10.0.
Adobe doesn't want to be held back and blamed for security holes when Mac users aren't given the latest version of its software, but Apple doesn't want to get blamed for a potentially poor user experience that isn't its fault. Time to weigh in, DLS readers. Whose side are you on?
[via ZDNET]
UPDATE: Adobe left a very informative comment on this post, explaining the timing on this situation and saying there's no bad blood between the two companies here, only an interest in the security of their mutual customers. They also said that even though it would have been impractical for Apple to update Flash in 10.6.4, Apple should have put something in its security bulletin letting users know they needed to upgrade to the latest Flash Player.
| Adobe | |
|---|---|
| Apple | |
| Neither. They should both get over themselves. |
Comments
18
Subscribe to commentsTroy GatesJun 17th 2010 5:29PM
Why is Apple bundling Flash with their systems? Let end-users download it if they want it. I'm sure the first time they come across a webpage that needs Flash, they will go download it.
flarkleJun 17th 2010 5:52PM
Strange that Apple won't give people the choice of having Flash on their iPhone/iPad, but won't give them the choice of NOT having it on their Mac.
Not including the latest, most secure version really does make it look like Apple is just afraid of the competition to the App Store that Flash would bring to their mobile devices and has nothing to do with security or performance like they say.
Jay HathawayJun 17th 2010 5:57PM
The stable version of Flash 10.1 came out 5 days before the 10.6.4 update shipped. That might not be an excuse, but it certainly didn't give Apple enough time to test it.
S4RsJun 17th 2010 5:44PM
If flash 10.1 which is now complete, not in beta, not an RC is crashing systems, then it should stay in beta/RC and is a premature release.
Cant users still just update flash on their own though? I agree with Troy. apple shouldn't be bundling it at all.
EvenioJun 17th 2010 6:01PM
Ugh, more of this catfighting (even if, in this particular case, it's well-founded). So sick of it. I just wanna grab them both and say "You, you, make my shit work and be quiet."
@Troy: You have a good point there. It's not as if requiring a simple, optional plugin installation would be such a hardship...although you can bet the blogosphere would instantly erupt in wailing and gnashing of teeth anyway. It doesn't even make sense for Apple to be shouldering the responsibility for distributing the Flash plugin anyway.
DonJun 28th 2010 1:28AM
lol--Great post. Apparently Apple doesn't realize that Flash does indeed make the Internet work.
Dave JohnsonJun 17th 2010 5:57PM
Why include it? I get that apple users aren't too terribly used to manually doing much of anything, but the flash install is absolutely painless. Personally ... I think there's a lot of positioning going on here. I know it's not the same ... but I appreciate Win7 ... it just works and flash is fine. If Apple and Adobe weren't in a pissing match they could resolve the problem. But they can't and end users suffer needlessly. I truly think the ball is in Apple's court. Either work with Adobe or don't offer anything. This in-between stuff is chicken sh*t.
EvenioJun 17th 2010 6:12PM
The ball is really in both courts: Apple needs to decide whether or not to leave Flash support in Adobe's hands, and Adobe needs to make some software for OS X that doesn't suck, and earn Apple's trust back if they intend to stay on the Mac platform long-term.
JayJun 17th 2010 6:47PM
Why did the Flash player have security issues in the first place?
Jay HathawayJun 17th 2010 6:52PM
There were some exploits that had been sitting there for a long time that suddenly became highly-publicized in the security community, and Adobe moved to patch them.
Wiebke LipsJun 17th 2010 7:10PM
Nobody added fuel to the fire here, so there is really no point to running a survey about who wins this particular debate - there is no debate. The Adobe Flash Player 10.1 update was released on June 10, 2010, likely after the build for the Mac OS X 10.6.4 update was locked. However, Adobe had issued a security advisory on June 4 for a zero-day vulnerability in Flash Player 10.0.45.2 (the version included in the Mac OS X 10.6.4 update). Because a reference to the Adobe security bulletin announcing a fix for this issue was not included in the Apple security bulletin, we saw it as our obligation to our mutual customers to issue an entry to our Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) blog, recommending users update to the latest, most secure version of Flash Player (10.1.53.64). Our only motivation behind the blog post was the security of our mutual customers.
Security is an industry concern and not one that is limited to a select group of vendors or products. No organization is immune to vulnerabilities and exploits. It is critical that vendors and the security community at large partner and work together to try and stay ahead of the game and combat those with malicious intent. It's not a game about "us vs. them."
Wiebke Lips
Senior Manager, Corporate Communications
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Jay HathawayJun 17th 2010 7:06PM
Thanks for the inside perspective here. I figured it was at least partially a case of bad timing. You also make a good point that Apple could have updated its bulletin or release notes, at the very least.
I've updated the post to draw attention to your comment.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 17th 2010 7:08PM
Hear hear!
Less bickering, more securing!
@davey_ladJun 18th 2010 3:23AM
Should have bought a PC
Daniel JarvisJun 24th 2010 12:31AM
Yeah if I wanted more problems an viruses... Not the mac platform is the best!:).
DonJun 28th 2010 1:29AM
Something that can be fixed by just surfing smartly.
OhmyshnarbJul 8th 2010 11:43PM
The only reason macs have less viruses is because less programs are made to hurt their very different systems. Macs allow no program exploration. In games like the sims 2, it would be completely impossible to add downloadable content. The only way to directly effect your program files on a mac is through a program, or serious, legnthy hacking. My friend likes a gaming company called steam, he bought a mac, thinking it would be nice, only to find most of his programs and games had no use. I had to spend 3 long days breaking that computer down just to access his more exposed files. On a PC, it would have taken me 30 seconds to access similar files. A mac is a stricly business computer for novices in the computer layout, it's claim to fame that it is less suceptable to viruses is a bent and twisted half-truth. I did some exparamenting, and it is just as succeptable to viruses and spyware as a pc, it's just that macs are unpopular enough that few target a macs system. Having a mac is almost like having a virus, you have no access to your files. The computer is hardly yours.
MaggyJul 21st 2010 9:58AM
I've loved reading all these sensible comments. I know nothing about technicalities. All I know is I own a whole lot of Apple's products but I'm beginning to hate them! I can do very few of the things I like to do. I play no games. I have a simple life that these problems are making it not so simple any more. For every other or so things, they require Adobe's Flash Player. Very simple thing! Like wanting to make an album, on Shutterfly, about my grandkids and not being able to!!! Like listening to my favorite Radio Station in Miami, Univision's Radio Mambí, and again not being able to! See? And like that many others. I bought Ipads for my son and myself and was planning for that to be my next Christmas presents for my other 3 kids and their wives & husband, but, guess what? No way. Not this problem couldn't get them. I'm sick of getting: "you need adobe flash player".
This is not fair at all. They should stop their bickering, get their heads together and fix the problem for us consumers go on with our lives. Please.
'