Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
Summary: Hey Adobe: Apple and Microsoft say you have reliability and security problems with Flash Player. A whole lot of my readers say the same thing. As do I. So, uh, when do you plan to address that elephant in the room?
Here's some advice, Adobe. The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
Yes, I know you'd rather frame your fight with Apple as a high-minded crusade for freedom, but your customers think differently. When I hear fellow PC users talk about Flash these days, I hear the exact same frustration and exasperation I heard during Vista's first year on the market. That is not the kind of word of mouth you want.
And make no mistake about it, those concerns are real. Was Steve Jobs exaggerating when he called Flash the biggest source of crashes on the Mac? Maybe a little, but I bet he has some pretty grim statistics to back that statement up. And Microsoft is reinforcing that same message, albeit more politely and with masterful understatement. Here's what IE boss Dean Hachamovitch had to say two weeks ago:
Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance. We work closely with engineers at Adobe, sharing information about the issues we know of in ongoing technical discussions.
"Some issues"? Yeah, that's one way of putting it. My own experience fits right in. I discovered yesterday that Internet Explorer crashes on my wife's PC once or twice a day. The Windows 7 Reliability Monitor says Adobe's Flash Player is to blame (yes, it's up-to-date), and it offers a step-by-step solution: Uninstall the Flash Player, reboot, and reinstall Flash. (The Microsoft prescription is, in fact, the exact same set of steps I recommended right here back in January.)
I did exactly that, and guess what? Today, at 7:42AM, another Flash crash. At the same time on the same PC, TweetDeck, an app that runs on the Adobe Air platform, had stopped responding. The crash report fingered that same Flash ActiveX control version as the cause.
Update: Via Twitter, Adobe's John Dowdell questions my report on the TweetDeck crash. I got one small detail wrong. It was FlashUtil10e.exe, not the Active X control, Flash10e.ocx. Both versions were the same, 10.0.45.2. Here's the crash report from Windows:
Oh, and just a little while ago the latest Adobe Reader update failed on another PC, with this not-so-helpful message: "Update failed. Cannot install this update. Please run Adobe Reader Repair. Error:1500."
So pardon me if I feel cranky about your software right now, Adobe.
Look, Apple and Microsoft say you have reliability and security problems with Flash Player. A whole lot of my readers say the same thing. And so do I. We're all sort of waiting for you to acknowledge that the number of times people have a negative experience with Flash is too high. Until you address that elephant in the room, no one is really interested in hearing much more about openness and freedom. (Well, except for the FTC and the DOJ, but that's a different issue completely.)
And then there's security. According to Microsoft's most recent Security Intelligence Report, published earlier this week, a Flash Player exploit was the most commonly exploited browser vulnerability in the first half of last year. The list of security updates for Flash Player is depressingly long. So, how are you planning to convince us that you've gotten serious about security?
I talked to an Adobe spokesperson earlier this week and heard all about the big improvements coming in Flash Player 10.1. Product Manager Tom Nguyen told me, "We're looking after the interests of our end users and customers," and ticked off a list of improvements that are on the way: support for more mobile devices and more operating systems, better performance, improvements in power usage (and thus improved battery life), support for hardware-accelerated H.264 video. Those are all big, important features.
What I didn't hear was a promise and a plan to deliver a more reliable, more secure product. Should we expect Flash 10.1 to crash less and be more resistant to attacks than Flash 10 or Flash 9? Why? What have you learned about how to stop customers from having a crappy experience and how are you applying those lessons? "Well," I was told, "there's an improved installer."
Not the answer I was hoping for.
Microsoft responded to the mess that was Vista by bringing in a new boss, Steven Sinofsky, who changed the internal culture on the Windows team quickly and decisively. He also brought in a lot of engineering discipline and an unprecedented level of communication about the Windows 7 development process via detailed, sometimes epic posts on the E7 Blog.
Adobe has profound issues of quality and negative perception to deal with, just as Microsoft did with Vista. But in Flash they also have a product that is going to be severely challenged by HTML5 and Silverlight and probably some other products and technologies we don't even know about right now. I'm certain Flash will still be around in five years and probably in 10 years. But it will be much less important than it is today.
The big question for Adobe is whether they can shut down the complaints about Flash by delivering a product that "just works." Oh, and at the same time stake out a future for a Web running on HTML5. Good luck with that.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Huh? Don't you mean the new XP?
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
. . . and it was totally necessary to have it - because Windows 7 is built on it. If it weren't for Vista, you wouldn't have Windows 7.
This is just the way software development works sometimes. Even with a large company like Microsoft, there's gonna be some lemons.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
So, you bought a crappy consumer grade laptop loaded with crapware, and it was all Vista's fault that you had trouble with it. I would hazard that it was probably your only experience with Vista as well. Never mind that for the vast majority of us Vista ran exceptionally well, easily outperforming XP in every way possible, as quantified and verified by numerous independent tests on identical hardware. Never mind that Windows 7 that you so rave about is basically just Vista with a few minor UI tweaks. Never mind that there are still millions of us happily running Vista who see no compelling reason to upgrade to 7. Take it from someone who actually supports PCs and end users for a living. Vista was the best Microsoft OS since 2K, while 7 is probably the best since 95.
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
And isn't MS calling Flash insecure a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? I'm just saying...
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
I never had issues with Vista, I bought in May of 2007 and it always worked fine. After SP2 I don't think Win 7 is noticeably faster although I prefer the UI.
Windows XP was a great OS (after SP2) but it tends to be pretty insecure it would seem.
Vista - No problems
vista sp2
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
Everybody is complaining so much about Vista.
I don't know ...
Comparing to XP, Vista I have (Home Premium 64) WAS! less reliable.
However it was not such a horror as some described.
Death screen happened once ... after attempt to install upgrade.
There were other minor problems.
Now, after last service pack, Vista acts like a fully grown and mature OS.
It works so well, I pushed purchase of Win7 until ... sometime in the future:)
I must say, Vista requires powerful system to work on, I have it on Q4 Intel (2.3x4) with 8GB of RAM.
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
@athynz, I'm with ya
The Vista Upgrade Advisory Tool,
The "Vista Capable" stickers,
the lies they wrote on the outside of their retail boxes...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx
When I was posting under hasta la Vista, bah-bie, I had a lot of discussions about this
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=49611&messageID=929295&start=-9659
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=46400&messageID=862594&start=-9750
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=48600&messageID=907929&start=0
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=49611&messageID=929612&start=-9659
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=49611&messageID=930043&start=0
Re: athynz
I have installed XP and Vista on identical hardware. I have also wiped XP machines and installed Vista, and in every case the machine ran much better than it ever did with XP. Vista is faster, more stable, more secure, and much better at multitasking than XP. I have also wiped Vista machines and installed 7, and found a very slight improvement in performance, not the huge difference that you state.
Have I seen Vista machines that ran poorly? Of course I have! I had one of my users bring me a laptop from home that she was ready to throw away, loudly proclaiming how crappy Vista was. When I checked it out I found an Celeron processor with 512 MB RAM. XP would have sucked on that machine. I have also had Vista machines that were sluggish out of the box, but in every case I found that the issue was crapware, not enough RAM, or performance hogging software such as Norton AV, Google Desktop, or something similar. With no more than a few minutes time cleaning up the machine or at most adding RAM I could turn the slow pig into a fine performing machine.
So, you tell me. If I can cure the sluggishness of a Vista machine by removing Google Desktop or Norton Internet Security, is Vista at fault, or the software that bogged it down?
Re: athynz
I have installed XP and Vista on identical hardware. I have also wiped XP machines and installed Vista, and in every case the machine ran much better than it ever did with XP. Vista is faster, more stable, more secure, and much better at multitasking than XP. I have also wiped Vista machines and installed 7, and found a very slight improvement in performance, not the huge difference that you state.
Have I seen Vista machines that ran poorly? Of course I have! I had one of my users bring me a laptop from home that she was ready to throw away, loudly proclaiming how crappy Vista was. When I checked it out I found an Celeron processor with 512 MB RAM. XP would have sucked on that machine. I have also had Vista machines that were sluggish out of the box, but in every case I found that the issue was crapware, not enough RAM, or performance hogging software such as Norton AV, Google Desktop, or something similar. With no more than a few minutes time cleaning up the machine or at most adding RAM I could turn the slow pig into a fine performing machine.
So, athynz, you tell me. If I can cure a sluggish Vista machine by removing some other software, is Vista at fault, or companies like Google or Symantec who produce software that would slow down any computer, XP included?
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
I agree with your post. As a 16 year technician, I've seen a lot, everyn OS including Macs.
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
In terms of Flash, I think Adobe has not put the resources into it that is required to support a web wide mission critical platform. Hopefully they will get the message and up their game. I think that Jobs has ulterior motivations in his criticism. Microsoft is has SilverLight, so its complaints are not above suspicion either.
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
Yes, it had some performance issues, before SP1, but it was still an improvement over XP.
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
RE: Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-deals/nikon-lens-black-friday-sale-2011-black-friday-nikon-lens-deals-2011/253684421351007">black friday nikon lens</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-camcorder-sale-camcorder-black-friday-deals-black-friday-camcorder-/250683621650695">black friday canon lens</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-canon-lens-sale-canon-lens-black-friday-deals-black-friday-canon-le/250682674984123">black friday camcorder</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-camcorder-sale-camcorder-black-friday-deals-black-friday-camcorder-/250683621650695">camcorder black friday</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-canon-lens-sale-canon-lens-black-friday-deals-black-friday-canon-le/250682674984123">canon lens black friday</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/nikon-d5100-black-friday-sale-black-friday-nikon-d5100-2011-nikon-d5100-black-fr/250710044981386">Nikon D5100 Black Friday</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-nikon-d7000-sale-nikon-d7000-black-friday-2011-black-friday-nikon-d/250717538313970">Black Friday Nikon D7000</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/black-friday-camera/black-friday-nikon-d3100-sale-nikon-d3100-black-friday-deals-black-friday-nikon-/250723248313399">Black Friday Nikon D3100</a>