Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Adobe Flash Player

Review and assessment

I've been expanding this article over the past few months and would like to know what's missing. I added 2 more project templates, Software and Free software (since Flash Player is free, though not open source). I've rated it "Mid" class under Software, since Flash Player was the first example on the Mid-class of the project's importance scale. I've also cleared the issues with the Criticism section and expanded the same section, and I've tried to be as unbaised as possible. Thanks for any help. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section avoids the history of criticism. Some of the points criticised have been addressed in more recent versions, but this section mentions a criticism and then gives the answer to that criticism as if it had always been there.
Its use to get around users clearing cookies.
This controversy was about 2009: eg http://www.wired.com/business/2009/08/you-deleted-your-cookies-think-again/
"More than half of the internet’s top websites use a little known capability of Adobe’s Flash plug-in to track users and store information about them, but only four of them mention the so-called Flash cookies in their privacy policies, UC Berkeley researchers reported Monday." It goes on to say how Flash is used to create 'zombie cookies' that reappear whenever users clear their cookies. None of this is even mentioned in this page its like history has been whitewashed.
User's were unaware of the settings manager website, and even those that were may not have realised that with each update all the settings were cleared.
"Flash Player 10.1 and upward honor the privacy mode settings" is that a roundabout way of saying versions 1 to 10 ignored privacy settings?
"Flash Player will only allow content originating from exactly the same website domain to access data saved in local storage." This is either wrong or very misleading, because when a user visits different websites information is shared between these websites using Flash. They just do it through a 3rd party. The 3rd party will be using a single domain but this is not the website domain the user is visiting, it is only the domain of the 3rd party, often an advertiser's plug in. If the average user looks at the domains that are listed by Flash in the Settings Manager they would not recognise the majority of the websites listed.
"According to Steve Jobs, running Flash video on the iPad would cut its battery life from 10 hours to a measly 1.5"
Apple says "Flash delivers half the battery life of its H.264" No mention of how Flash uses up the battery. Users have created special programs to handle Flash, and other plugins, because they are such a drain on batteries. eg ClickToFlash, being able to start up Flash only when the user wants to see a video. http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/ (Which is another criticism: users have no control over a Flash movie starting up when they visit a website, Adobe do not allow users to even start/stop a movie, users have had to create these controls themselves.)
QuentinUK (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few times a day my computer locks up because Shockwave has stopped running (This happens even though I rarely do any moving stuff like Youtube). If this is common and documentable, it should be included. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only content created on the Adobe Flash platform?

In the first sentence: "software for viewing multimedia, executing rich Internet applications, and streaming video and audio, content created on the Adobe Flash platform." What does this mean? Can it only be used to view, execute and stream content created on the Adobe Flash platform? Or can it view and execute content created on other platforms, but stream only content created on the Adobe Flash platform? Or can it also be used for streaming video and audio content created on other platforms? Nurg (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fact

Is there a source which has no COI in providing the penetration numbers of Flash Player? 87.78.174.19 (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release date of latest updates

One thing I like about this article is that it usually has the date of the latest update of Flash Player. There was an update release today (Feb 5 2015) but when I looked at the article, the article hadn't been updated to match. I did find the release notes on Adobe's site. Oaklandguy (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did it! Thank you! Oaklandguy (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a problem with the Adobe Flash Player page on Wikipedia, namely that on the right hand side of the page, in the "Stable release" section, we currently have: 

   Windows, OS X:
   {{LStp://adobe.com/software/flash/about Newest Adobe Flash Player versions]
       
       Release date for older versions
       Direct download links for all supported versions and OS

followed by a /noinclude end tag.

I don't appear to be able to edit this part of the page in order to fix the problem. If someone else could do this I would be very grateful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gepree (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You can thank Denniss for his vigilance. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's issue reappeared when I checked today (Apr 22, 2016) - there was a release on April 21. Maybe this issue is related to the reason for the release, which relates to Macs. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Player vs Authoring environment

The release history lists a lot of improvements made in the authoring environment, but many of these features aren't actually reflected in the player. Color tweening for example is handled only in the authoring environment, AFAIK, and dumps the tweened results to the SWF file. You can verify by importing an SWF file into an FLA.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dates format

There's a mix of format for dates (day month year and month day, year,), would be nice if someone made them consistent one way or another. 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.88.34 (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Adobe Flash Player. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020 - end of life, and future of services

does anyone know anything about the product e.o.l.,and the future direction of these types of services?

Pga1965 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe's explanation

I found the following document on Adobe's website:
Adobe Flash Player EOL General Information Page
Maybe the Wikipedia article refers to this somewhere; but if not, it should. I'm not enough of an expert to edit the article to include this reference, but I hope someone will. I have had Flash Player installed. Today, Adobe sent me a notice that referred to their document, but the link within that notice didn't work. Adobe's notice has an Uninstall button, with the description, "If you do not need to access Flash content, we recommend that you remove Flash Player from your system by clicking the 'Uninstall' button below." I will do exactly that after I finish this edit. Oaklandguy (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Should it be said that Pale Moon (web browser) has vowed to support NPAPI plugins including Flash beyond 2020? The current article says which OSs support it and which browsers won't but not which browsers will. --Error (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing 'Clarify' issue

In this Microsoft article: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/announcements/update-adobe-flash-support, it says 'Here's what you can expect for each Microsoft browser:'possibly referring to Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer. Also, it only specified that Flash would be removed from the new Microsoft Edge (the one with the Chromium build). Just put this here in case anyone wanted to edit using this information. Atimes3 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... flash is an enormous part of internet history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.139.68 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?

Everything is about Flash’s discontinuation today. Since it’s outdated(and Adobe is blocking flash content from running Jan 12), I suggest changing everything to past tense. Opinions?
--Iovecodeabc (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued software does not cease to exist. MOS:TENSE says that articles on discontinued products should be written in present tense. I wouldn't mind changing sentences to past tense where it actually makes sense—but not everything. Definitely not the first sentence—"Adobe Flash Player ... is discontinued computer software". Again, it did not cease to exist. It is just deprecated, discontinued and soon dysfunctional or perhaps unusable. But it exists, so past tense cannot be used there.—J. M. (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Readability on "Flash is discontinued software"

So, I have checked several software articles and there is some disagreement on how to handle this. For the past tense, Windows Movie Maker uses the "... is a discontinued software ..." form for example, and Netscape Navigator uses "... was a proprietary web ...". In that front, no comment. Moreover, other software articles do use "a" regardless of its uncountability. It is clearly helpful that singular indefinite pronouns are used for clarity, despite that the formal grammar rules appear to contradict this. Needless to say, "Flash is discontinued software" doesn't really read well. - 49.147.244.20 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J. M.:, may I know the rationale of not using "a discontinued software" despite "Flash is discontinued software" being less clear on reading? - 49.147.244.20 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any disagreement. For example, Netscape Navigator says it is "a browser" ("browser" is a countable noun), Windows Movie Maker says it is "a software program" (the "program", not "software", is the subject in the sentence, hence the indefinite article, as "program" is a countable noun) etc. Saying that Adobe Flash Player is "a software" is simply wrong. You can say it is "a software product" (where "product", which is a countable noun, is the subject), but you can't say it is "a software". So you can reword the first sentence, but it cannot say it is "a software".—J. M. (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the discontinuation, Netscape Navigator has been dead for decades. Adobe Flash Player still exists, it is still used on many web pages, and saying that it "was" a software product just because of the planned obsolescence is a typical example of overzealous editing on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

The article reads:

It was discontinued on December 31, 2020, its download page disappeared on January 2, 2021, and a built-in time bomb from versions newer than 32.0.0.371 will display a static icon with an information page link starting on January 12, 2021.

I don't see any sources, and this seems like it was taken from somewhere. There is past tense from future dates. Also, why would the download page disappear after it is discontinued? And what does it mean by built-in time bomb? I think that this is vandalism.

CoolSwitch4212 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is vandalism - by Adobe. That really happened! How many things are fucked up today??

Not Vandalism

The person adding the text was trying to be helpful. I too was trying to be helpful, but in a clumsy way. So I apologize for not bringing my concerns here before attempting to add a note to the main article.

The software is no longer being supported and Adobe is FIRMLY requesting that it be removed from users devices. Details about Adobe's announcement are here: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/end-of-life.html

At this point Wikipedia editors more familiar than Me with how to present the Flash story could rewrite this article to reflect the historical value that Flash and the Flash Player provided for these many years. I'm sentimental. So it's kind of sad to see the end of Flash. But it does deserve a farewell here on Wikipedia that takes into account Adobe's position as well as that of users. I'll look to find information elsewhere that may be useful. Stan Pokras SuperStan100 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Microsoft Update KB4577586 also removes the Mainland Chinese version of Adobe Flash Player from Windows.

We all know that Microsoft Update KB4577586 removed Adobe Flash from the Windows operating system (mostly Windows 8.1 & Windows 10), and it's possible that Windows 11 removed the built-in Adobe Flash Player from the included Windows Components. But does Microsft Update KB4577586 also removes the Mainland Chinese version of Adobe Flash Player from Windows 8.1 and Windows 10? So far, as far as I know, nobody has seemed to tested this with the Chinese versions of Windows 8.1 & Windows 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeveloperPudú (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here)

This is is not a fantastic article, but is is not unambiguously promotional. Adobe Flash Player easily meets WP:GNG. Bearing in mind that Adobe Flash Player is now pretty much defunct since 2021, it is hard to see how the article is promoting something that almost no-one is using nowadays. Speedy deletion is for very poor articles, please do not add speedy delete tags as a stunt. This was not well thought out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adobe_Flash_Player