File: 90s.swf-(9.16 MB, 544x306, Other)
[_] Was flash murdered??? Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)04:00:19 No.3510046
Technically speaking, did flash need to die for any particular reason? "It's a security concern!"
was the big reason I saw at the time. I also remember someone theorizing that flash was killed
off so that apps or w/e could become the standard.
Who was in charge of letting flash die, Adobe? Who was CEO, what was Adobe's current project at
that time, etc? Did flash really need to die?
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)05:23:56 No.3510048
>>3510046
Given the actual shit-storm happening in Adobe right now, it corroborates my theories about what
happened back then. That there was "bad faith" on the part of the company in regards to that
"move". The whole "opsec" excuse was bullshit. You just don't go and say "I give up", "here, take
everything, I don't want it anymore". That's what happened. Adobe back stabbed all of their user
base leaving them with nothing, surely for a whole lotta money from apple, google and microsoft.
Fast forward to present day, and they backstabbed them users again.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)08:15:08 No.3510051
>>3510046
My memory is a bit hazy, but I remember being in a bunch of threads on this board on 31 december
2020. I remember a few anons going on about how flash really didn't need to die and that adobe
did it very intentionally with kill switches or something.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)13:36:47 No.3510057
>>3510048
Would it be possible to look at financial reports from Adobe to see if this actually happened
instead of it just being a theory? Also, what's happening in Adobe right now?
>>3510051
Yeah this doesn't surprise me at all
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)14:28:43 No.3510059
>>3510057
>what's happening in Adobe right now?
I don't want to spoil it and ruin the fun for you, but it's all over the place, it's the talk of
the hour. Adobe secretly changed the terms of subscription since a year already, so they can use
anything you do on their software, "online or offline" . They're feeding their AI data bases with
the user content. ("not private content", because according to them a subscription model doesn't
give you "ownership" over the software and the products derived from that "leasing agreement"):
To me that's the worst part of the scandal, but people are focusing more on the fact that the
terms of agreement deny you the option to opt out from some very scandalous (criminal)
subscription fee, you can't get out of the subscription with out paying a fucking criminal amount
of money.
It's insane what is happening, but that give you the cue to what happened before, and the way
Adobe behaves business wise. It is a modus-operandi:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxg5LzFw-_g
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3lJpEUnuA
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cayIOCg24bE
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0_Vfzw6bJ0
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9_T-C2UNvY
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3_F48VmvQU
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkFpWDYwo1k
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVAlAPHxkMs
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3epPibi6DE
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_1KgmHOtdc
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr0xIvHx5J8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idNF-BFmQs8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbbschYKjE
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnW56SFIT4
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOvpH1udF-I
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FscPpiir5RY
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wl7_biCPr0
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)16:06:58 No.3510061
>>3510046
Yes, and you killed it by posting a video converted to .swf instead of an actual fucking flash
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)16:37:36 No.3510064
>>3510051
Well yeah, the official Adobe Flash plugin was notoriously updated to become unable to actually
play Flashes.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)16:55:05 No.3510066
>>3510051
>>3510064
Just NOW, looking back at it, it really seems weird that a company actively pursues the total
annihilation of its own product like that. Instead of just let it be like any other abandonware
product. Forcing you to delete and kill any trace of a software that was of general use, with
forced termination updates, and mainstream campaigns. Just like the covid scare. In that flash
case, now it seemed like they desperately wanted to comply with some hugely convenient agreement,
they were on a mission for sure. Someone needed to get rid of flash, burn it to the ground, and
destroy the tool and the developer user base for good.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/13/24(Sat)17:32:25 No.3510068
>>3510066
I just think they knew that people would keep using an outdated Flash Player online and that
since it's been such a common plugin for two decades, many people could still have it alongside
outdated Web browsers, creating a huge security problem. It seems more likely that they did this
to avoid being blamed for future security disasters than anything imho.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)06:14:11 No.3510087
>>3510046
If flash is dead, then we are necromancers
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)09:00:41 No.3510103
Flash was shot in the kneecaps and tossed ouf of a truck.
>Who was in charge of letting flash die, Adobe?
To be bluntly short, there are old threads who describe this in much better detail,
as with so many things - it was google (essentially), or to be more precise the HTML5 commitee
(comprised mostly by google&co).
As web video has for the longest time been courtesy of flash plugins, the goal was native video
playing capabilities by browsers.
Google used this momentum though to kick Adobe from their longest lasting position of being a
thorn in their eyes for complete web standard domination.
And Adobe themselves (most likely) had rather taken that suitcase of money from google and let
their anciently bought and long time nuisance of flash plugin development go to hell.
In turn robbing people of much agency and giving way to googles reign of controlling online video
content (sharing) and banishing indie games to the gacha, app store, monetization hell of today.
Flash needn't die, in fact it wasn't much more "insecure" than javascript is, you always need
security mesures in both cases, and a simple sandboxing of the plugin could have gone a long way.
Adobe could have made the swf format open source, but they didn't. Because it didn't "get
retired" or "served its purpose" or "was completey made redundant in all aspecs by any other
single format", it was simply "meant to never be a part of online culture" again.
You can (as we are living proof) without problems use flash today still, it was just made
extremely (for broader understanding) tedious by most modern browser developers (who are all
google's allies/lackeys one way or other) so that nobody will bother. Plus that complete smut
campaign about how LE DANGEROUS VIRUZZ it was to purge it from NORPs minds. Content creators
naturally sprung off by neccesity with time.
There is no reason to not make a super hardcoded developer option to still allow the flash
plugin. Browsers just don't want to give you that option.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)12:52:28 No.3510114
>>3510087
Cool. I'll run with that.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)17:12:00 No.3510119
I've always blamed Steve Jobs for steadfastly refusing to allow the technology anywhere near the
Apple ecosystem when it feasibly could have been ported there. His condemnation of the platform
clear back in the 2000s led to Google also scrapping it from any sort of Android compatibility
and from there its popularity began to decline, and the mounting security issues with it further
drove it into disuse until Adobe finally killed it in 2021 after announcing its EoL in ~2019.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)17:27:06 No.3510120
>>3510046
>Who was in charge of letting flash die,
Phone companies. The driving force behind this was phones. Apps couldn't compete with the free
nature of Flash releases except by making a walled garden and conditioning its users to think
paying was the norm.
Afterwards, Adobe itself tried to predatorially monetize Flash, but failed and caused
professionals to switch to other programs. With Android support getting worse, Adobe killing its
licensing cash cow, and Apple reacting with outright hostility, they started to implement
measures to kill it off.
Beyond greed and incompetence, Flash was a a security nightmare with flaws piled upon flaws.
People made all sorts of things in Flash that never should have existed, like train scheduling
software and industrial control panels. Adobe, wisely, did not want to be saddled with
maintaining this at a loss.
>> [_] John Moses Browning 07/14/24(Sun)17:52:46 No.3510121
>>3510059
Dat pinned comment from Louis Rossmanns video
>If buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing. I sent an email to Adobe customer support
letting them know that I'm changing the TOS and allowing myself to own all of their software at
no cost. By accepting my email, they've agreed to the TOS, and in order to file a dispute, they
need to send a certified letter weighing exactly 1.337oz and sealed with wax the exact color of
my asshole. Failure to do so constitutes acceptance of my new TOS.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)18:20:57 No.3510124
>>3510121
LMAO! Fucking Brilliant
>> [_] Anon 07/14/24(Sun)18:33:14 No.3510125
How can I feel nostalgia from a time that u didn't even exist?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/14/24(Sun)23:12:35 No.3510131
>>3510103
Thanks for the writeup anon, I appreciate this.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/15/24(Mon)15:06:36 No.3510144
>>3510125
it's easy
just load up swfchan's archive collection of /f/ classics
>> [_] Anonymous 07/15/24(Mon)15:51:57 No.3510145
>>3510125
That little flash gives me the goosebumps every time. But I went through that era. I'm still
thinking what it was that made it all that special.
I think the problem is the internet creation. The internet eliminated time. There's no time to
savor anything anymore.
A product was hard to produce and hard to get, you were teased by it from afar, you see it coming
slowly. It was a dynamic that created sub-culture around it. "Hype" was on a whole different
level.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/15/24(Mon)18:34:41 No.3510154
>>3510125
t'was a simpler time, anon
a better one arguably
definitely for flash though
>> [_] Anonymous 07/15/24(Mon)18:39:55 No.3510155
>>3510154
I think he's referring to the video content in the flash and the music, all 90's stuff. Flash was
a mid 2000's thing.
