Mac User: Why so many Flash updates?

Is there s special reason why there seems to be so many flash updates. I seem to be updating at least weekly on all my machines.
My questions are:
1) Are there really this many recent updates ( I counted seven in on this machine in the past couple of months)?
2) Are there challenges with Mac OS that makes the updates necessary?
3) Or am I experience some sort of local phenomenon unique to my system?
I find all the updates somewhat bothersome. They interrupt my work flow.
Thanks...
Dan Kurtycz

Yes - highly, Highly, HIGHLY annoying!
Plus don't take me to a website promoting any of your other Adobe products after an update! I am currently a paying customer for Photoshop / Premiere but I swear your intrusive updates and forced marketing push are going to make me look ELSEWHERE!!!

Similar Messages

Why are there so many flash updates?

Why are there so many Flash updates… I have had two in the last week and at least one more since the start of the year. It seems to have really got silly this last 12 months, is Flash really that unsecure and unstable that it needs this many fixes and updates?
I know you can tick the install in background box when updating but I like to know what is going onto my computer and given Adobe's knack of crashing my system when using PS and AI I don't really want them silently installing anything.

99% of the time the update gets prompted by Youtube or BBC when videos won't play on there sites and I follow the links through them. You would like to think that big sites like these would not allow false links to malware to crop up, but it isn't out of the question. Next stop, up to date anti virus…..
As far as Youtube goes I thought they had adopted HTML 5 now as standard and didn't rely on Flash?

May be slightly simple question from a new Mac user: Why can't I quit safari? I cannot quit it from top menu bar neither to do it from dock? All other apps are working normally.

May be slightly simple question from a new Mac user: Why can't I quit safari? I cannot quit it from top menu bar neither to do it from dock? All other apps are working normally.

Or you can actived the right button on your magic mouse and click on they icon in the dock. then you select "stop" and it's out of your dock.
Greetings
*update: Sorry, my mistake! I didn't read your message correct! Sorry for the inconvience!

Why does the flash update install mcaffee with out asking!!!

Why does the flash update install mcaffee with out asking!!!

Because McAffee pays to have their installer "bundled" with the update. It's not right, and the "blind installer" in the update (with no opt out) has been documented and reported.
You can download the Adobe Flash Player installer directly (without any bundled installers) by clicking one of the following links.
Flash Player for ActiveX (Internet Explorer)
Flash Player Plug-in (All other browsers)
Bookmark those for future use.

New Mac user - No audio with Flash cartoons

I'm using the Digi002R for my audio interface, which works fine. CD's play fine. Internet audio/video work fine. I just can't hear the audio on any Flash cartoons. Please help the new Mac user. I need my homestarrunner.com. Thank you,
James P.

Don't know what the problem is, the Digi002R utilizes a Firewire and most likely some sort of software which is incompatible with Flash.
Seems to work fine with my Toslink though.
New Mac user a good book , Mac OS X Tiger: The Missing Manual
Also some good tips on my site, welcome to Mac BTW
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/Personal11.html
News
http://mac.zicos.com/
http://www.barefeats.com/
http://macteens.com/index.php/features/fullstory/puttingdvds_onto_youripod/

Why does adobe flash update by default try to install their security product?

I like adobe products. What I don't like is the continual push on installations to install other products (i.e. security) when installing something as simple as a flash update.
It becomes a bit tiring after a while to continually having to carefully survey every install/update to make sure that something I don't want is by default added to my system.
How about making everything optional that is not directly related to what I am installing or upgrading.
Eventually I will just stop using the adobe products and will find some other company that does not do this. I hope all the companies marketing departments
are listening to this. I am sure that I am only the tip of the iceburg of people who are tired of this deceptive practice and will move somewhere else where this is not done.
Gary

Gary
There are "standalone" installers that don't have the "bundled junk"
Flash Player for ActiveX (Internet Explorer)
Flash Player Plug-in (All other browsers)
Adobe doesn't push them because they offest costs by having McAfee/Norton/Google pay them for each download that IS bundled. And complain as you (and everyone else) might, the practice ISN'T going to change.

New mac user - Why can't FrontRow play my music?

I'm new to macs, but I've had a few dreadful experiences so far and I hope I can get some help. I just got through using Senuti to move my iPod's songs to my Mac Mini after they unexpectedly disappeared from there.
However, now that I have my songs back, FrontRow cant find them. When I click on a playlist in FrontRow, it is simply blank. All my songs are in Music/iTunes/iTunes Music. Is this a bug with Senuti or what?
Thank you very much in advance.
Mac Mini Intel 1.5Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.5)

That's weird, it only finds songs when they're check-marked. I check-marked all songs in my library and everything's back to normal.
If anyone knows why, please let me know. It's weird. At least it works, though.

Dear MAC users, why I can't upgrade to latest Mavericks OS? I'm running a genuine OS 10.8.5 S/N: C0*******V30

Please, if anyone can help with the above question?
AppStore is giving me: OS X Mavericks failed to download / Use the Purchases page to try again.
Purchases is giving me: An error has occured (in red)
<Subject Edited by Host>

Veskogg wrote:
Purchases is giving me: An error has occured (in red)
There may be an issue with your account... To Contact Customer Service and request assistance
Use this Link > Apple Support iTunes Store Contact

Why does the Flash player update push me to install McAfee Security Scan Plus?

When Flash asks me if I want to update, it takes me to an Adobe page to update it, but there is a checkbox already checked to install McAfee Security Scan Plus. I already have an anti-virus program installed. Why does the flash update page assume that I want to install this software?

Generally this occurs because there's a third-party plug-in that affects how the JavaScript on the page got executed. Ghostery, AdBlock Pro and NoScript are common candidates.
Under normal operating conditions, you should see an opt-out dialog like the one below. While cost-recovery measure are a reality for a product that is tremendously expensive to develop and distribute free of charge, the intent is absolutely to allow you to opt out.
If you want to avoid the download and installation experience for Flash altogether, switch to a browser that includes Flash Player as a built-in component, like Google Chrome or Internet Explorer on Windows 8 and higher.

There is a problem in updating iphoto and iMovie, read a response here from a certain Dahveed if I'm not wrong to try this, however I'm a first time mac user, how do you delete this ... /Mac HD/Library/Caches/com.apple.appstore/adoption.plist

There is a problem in updating iphoto and iMovie, read a response here from a certain Dahveed if I'm not wrong to try this, however I'm a first time mac user, how do you delete this ... /Mac HD/Library/Caches/com.apple.appstore/adoption.plist

It says 'To update this application, sign in to the account you used to purchase it.'
However I only have one account. I've tried to sign out and in several times. But it doesn't work. I do remember changing my password recently. Secondly I'd like to add that I got this macbook air 3 days ago. I'm a first time mac user. It had three updates initially. Mountain lion 10.8.2, iphoto and the imovie. I updated the mountain lion, thinking I'd get the iphoto and imovie done later. However now this problem has come up. Thanks for responding. Hoping to hear from you soon again regarding this.

Hello guys..does anybody know how to install and use adobe master collection with the new lion? I need to use Flash and illustratore, but apparently those programmes are incompatible with the new operative sistem... I am a new mac users and I'd like t

Hello guys..does anybody know how to install and use adobe master collection with the new lion?
I need to use Flash and illustratore, but apparently those programmes are incompatible with the new operative sistem...
I am a new mac users and I'd like to know if there are other similar programmes I can use with lion!

Lab79 wrote:
Are you on Apple's payroll?
well dude I can only let you know that as I work with those programme I don't have to pay for it is my company that pays the programme I whant to use( that's why I was asking if there where other programmes ..that I could use with lion insted that Illustrator and Flash!)..I know Adobe since 2005 and I can say that Adobs products are very good...I think that if it's an Adobe probleme or fault ..they will solve it very soon...but unfortunally I have the impression that after Jobs passed away Appel decided to change politics..and everything started to go very bad! (see FCP X)..
good luck with apple dude..
Where is the Apple problem? I have CS4 and CS5 running perfectly fine on my Macbook Pro. Installed 5 after Lion upgrade. Worth every cent. Adobe did have some catching up to do with Lion but with the CS5.5 update all runs fine. But not yours. So it is a problem with the Lion OS? You say you have been with Adobe since 2005. So you would be aware of all the other issues that Adobe had catching up with past Oss in Mac and Windows then. They get it right, but it is up to them. It is not up to Apple, nor Microsoft for that matter, to run around and check that every software developer in the world is running their business properly.
And what has politics got to do with anything. Some people just have to blame Software for their poor Hardware maintainence of failure of the same.
<The only think I can really do is to go back on my old windows...give back this orrible lap top and ask for my money back!>
Great suggestion. You should go with that one, but good luck getting a refund.
Bye

Why can't Apple make 'publish changes only' for non .mac users?

The recent iWeb update to 1.1 and the now increasingly obvious differential between .mac and non .mac features has prompted me to post here today.
I can understand comments, passwords and search facilities being a .mac only experience because it requires server side technology. I can also understand that .mac users get enhanced features like slideshows as well.
But why is the fundamentally *basic* option to 'publish the changes only' not available to non .mac users?
I know uploading to .mac uses a different protocol to uploading via FTP, but I don't think it is about that. Obviously the software engine in iWeb 1.1 can now track the pages that have changed, and flag those for uploading. So if the facility to do this is not available with non .mac uploading, is this some form of crippleware? Can any software engineers comment on this or am I talking off the top of my head? [And please mods, don't delete this post - I use the word 'crippleware' in its harshest form, clearly I can still use iWeb to make fantastic websites - I am asking a technical question here.]
Michael
A Trusty Quicksilver G4 Dual 1GHz

OK, from reading this thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=486335&tstart=0
There is a pattern: An error occurred while publishing file “/blah/blah", while file "/blah/blah" seems to be random from one person to the next, but they all share one thing and that is communication protocol.
For iWeb to be able to publish changes to .Mac, it has to:
1. identify if the file exists
2. do the following:
2a. if not exists, copy it to .Mac
2b. if exist, do some sort comparison - CRC checksum -
2b1. if checksums match, don't copy
2b2. if checksums don't match copy it to .Mac
At least I think that's what going on, I don't have .Mac so that is best I can think of. Perhaps, some Apple SW engineers can jump in here.
Now, the bad part is iWeb has to (and I'm assuming iWeb uses WebDAV):
1. go thru each file locally
2. crawl its way into .Mac (WebDAV is a slow protocol) to find the the counter part.
3. when it finds a file that matches a client side file, it has to (some how) do checksum on-the-fly across the net work (which is slow and congested)
#3 is I think where it failed, there are many factors here: 1) networks congestion 2) latency 3) protocol overhead 4) checksum calculation time etc...
iWeb eventually times out because any/all of the above.
It's nice that WebDAV can author to the host yada, yada, but it's so SLOOOOOW.
What I would do is for every publishing, I would build a files and their checksums keep it on the host (or local, must be hidden).
For subsequence publishing, I would (use a fast protocol like FTP) download this pre-built files/checksums list. Locally, do a full publishing, making checksum comparison, the result is delta changes; upload only those. Build a new files/checksums list upload that too.
What I mean to say is offload everything that is possible to local machine, bandwidth is PREMIUM!

Why does Adobe think we want addons Chrome and McAfee added to a simple FLASH update???????????

Presenting an update with addons like Chrome and McAfee to be installed nefariously directly run from the site is not good. Downloading the file after unchecking the box that I don't want mcafee messing up my computer one can install the update without that garbage. I don't want Chrome either.. Sure I have used it in the past but I don't want it now. It is just about impossible to use the web these days without flash activated unless you are an people and don't get it anyway.   Trying to piggyback that unwanted software on top of a Flash update is not cool! Its bad enough 3rd party downloads come with things like that but whats next some adware?    Please rethink your update policies as getting that stuff installed is doing no one that doesn't want it any favors at all.

Adobe does not think that anyone wants these 3rd-party add-ons. However, they have to fund a development team for the free software they provide; that's why/how they try to recover some of that funding.
I can understand they need money for their product yet they are the ones that bought macromedia and supported it on the web for years. I can remember when pdf files were new so new it stopped BART from allowing it through the network I was on. Do they not make enough money off of Photoshop? I realize if a network wants to support flash on macs they need to buy a another server option to make it work. I just find it deplorable the way it is done. In fact the check box is somewhat skillfully camouflaged on the update page.
Updates should not come with trickery in the update choice to tick the correct switch off (check box) to not have 3rd party unwanted choices.   The difference between the save vs run update from their site makes a difference in which way it comes to you as the default run from the adobe site is it comes with mcafee and chrome browser not the OS. This is not useful for the average jo computer user that has no clue.
What is next Babylon toolbar?    Have you ever seen the video of John McAfee explaining how to uninstall mcafee av? Perhaps you would understand the frustration of the users that encounter this.
How To Uninstall McAfee Antivirus - YouTube
This is a user forum; it is not "our" policy!
It may be your forum but its at adobe.com and supposedly the place found to ask questions. Its the only place I could find without writing a letter to adobe.
At least a dozen times every day someone posts the links to the offline installers, which are not bundled with any 3rd-party software. Why not use these instead of complaining...?
You might put up some links too the offline installers, however why should I trust some offline installer that may have adware, malware, or some other chumpware silkroped to it?
On top of that its adobe's updater that is notifying the user of update needed.      It appears the updates can come two different ways from adobe and may depend on if it is updating for ie or mozilla too.

Why doesnt Adobe just UPDATE Flash Professional? Arent they reinventing the wheel?

Congratulations on getting to open beta with Flash Catalyst!
I know its late in the game to mention something like this but why didnt Abobe just update Flash Professional?
It seems that the arguments for flash Catalyst center around the following:
1) smooth workflow between Photoshop & Illustrator, especially because of the same layer view
2) No coding required to create components out of artwork
3) Can create FXG and FXPs to be used in Flash Builder
4) Can create multi screen aplications
1) 2) and 3) could all be solved by adding a new types of symbols to Flash Professional's 3 currently available symbols(MovieClip, Button, Graphic)
1) could be solved by adding a new Sprite symbol.
Flash Professional needs to be updated to keep up with and match the structure of AS3 anyway.
Sprites were added in AS3 and now wireframe components are being added to the code structure, why not just at that on the design side as well?
Sprites are essentially MovieClips with out a timeline.
So if you created a new Sprite symbol and opened it up in the timeline, you would only see one frame with folders and layers.
A Sprite symbol is essentially organized the in layers and folders and would just like a photoshop file.
And if you really want it to look like a Photoshop layout, then you just move the timeline view over to the right.
This would solve problem 1. Designers could import their artwork into Flash Professional as a Sprite and it would be a seemless experience.
Obviously I'm not saying that a bitmap is a sprite. But I am saying that layers of bitmaps and could be organized inside of a Sprite. And the designer could turn any of the assets into a Button, MovieClip, Graphic, Sprite, and hopefully other Classes and WireframeComponents available in Flash.
2)&3) could be solved by adding a new Symbols for the new Wireframe Components. The Button symbol already has a template with 4 states. Why not update Flash Professional to visually represent more Classes and Component Classes, instead of just the MovieClip Class and the Button Class. Even better, maybe there could be a way to make a template for creating our own wireframe components. Just assign a base class for the wireframe class and a base template, and the introspection view will display accordingly.
States of the component would be listed out at the top instead of frames, just like the Button Symbol used to be. Different layers could be designated for specific graphical parts of the component. The designer would be free to add their own layers if necessary.
In previous versions of Flash, everything was a movieclip and everthing had a timeline. Thats not the case anymore. The timeline is for intropecting MovieClips, but this view could be different when intropsecting different types of symbols such as Sprites, Buttons, Wireframe Components, and even Custom Wireframe Components(extensible).
These new Symbols and also Sprites could export to FXG very easily.
The multi screen applications in 4) look pretty similar to the Slide Presentation Template. Why not just make a new MultiScreen App Template and youre done. these MultiScreenApp Templates could exporte Screens to FXG or export the whole Template to a FXP.
I applaud the work done on the new wireframe components and FXG. Great Job!
But, just cant understand why you cant update Flash Professional with new types of Symbols(Sprites, new Buttons and wireframe Component Classes) and a new MultiScreen App Template.
Flash Professional needs to keep up with AS3 and also needs to export FXG and FXP.
Why doesnt Adobe focus on on this rather than create a new Tool? These features need to be added to Flash Professional anyway.
Isnt there more of a disadvantage to having 2 tools for designers that do the same thing?
I'm sure this issue has been debated before. Can anyone point to me links that have the arguments for creating a separate tool instead of updating?
Has anyone ever suggested that Flash Professional should keep up with AS3?
Has anyone ever suggested making Sprites a new symbol in Flash Professional so that it could be more seamless with Photoshop?
Has anyone ever suggested make Wireframe components in Flash Professional like the Button Symbol in Flash Professional?
Has anyone ever suggested updating Flash Professional so that it would export FXG and FXP?
What is your opinion on this?
-thomasglyn

@Ross
Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate your feedback.
I'm glad we agree that ideally there should be 2 main tools, one for designers(Flash Professional) and one for programming(Flash Builder).
You had mentioned "But, that assumes this is possible. As it currently stands it is not" and the reason being "Catalyst, and Builder both use a completely different framework from Professional. The component architecture is drastically different, not to mention the entire backend of the software.".
You could also argue that, the reasons to make a separate flex component creation tool like Flash Catalyst assumes that updating Flash Professional CS4 is NOT possible. But is the statement about the framework being entirely different really true?
Well, that depends on what you mean by the term "framework".
Framework can refer to 3 things in this case.
1) the component framework
2) the code framework(AS3)
3) the flex framework (mxml, fxg)
If you are refering to #1 then you're right, because Adobe hasnt updated the flash component framework in Flash Professional from Flex3 Halo components to Flex4 Spark components.
Flash components have gone through many iterations, and the switch from AS2 to AS3 was probably more profound than the new wireless component structure(Spark). And now that we have AS3, isnt the only difficulty creating a intuitive UI in Flash Professional, and adding export features?
If you are refering to #2 then I think you're incorrect, because Flash Professional has been updated to AS3 and Flex4 Spark components use AS3. I would totally agree with you, if CS4 did not go through all of the trouble updating to AS3.
If you are refering to #3 then you're right, because Flash Professional doesnt export mxml, fxg, or fxp, but with a little creativity, it would probably be possible to allow such an export. Adding FXG/FXP export features could be solved by creating a new type of project file. Adobe did this for AS2, AS3, flash lite, etc. Why cant they just make a new AS3/FXG file that only allows you to build fxg/fxp exportable assets.
Why cant Adobe make a Sprite class the default document class for AS3/FXG projects and when some adds a movie clip asset, export movie clips as swfs or swcs?
So to be honest, after opening up Flash Catalyst again and looking at it again, I almost get the feeling that its just a Flash Component creation tool with a Photoshop UI, for the new AS3/Flex 4 components(Spark components) that Adobe just refuses to add to CS4. CS4 uses AS3 and Spark components use AS3. CS4 needs to be a visual design tool for all the classes in AS3(as much as possible).
Perhaps Adobe originally meant to name this product...
ADOBE FLASH COMPONENTS
Or maybe Adobe Flex Components(but thats no longer true, because Flex 4 will be Flash Builder).
In regard to "reinventing the wheel". Flash components have been reinvented several times, and I totally agree with you that this is important to "reinvent" components to keep up with new techiques as2,as3,fxg. You are right, this is a positive thing. However in this case, I am using "reinvent in a negative sense.
So maybe I shouldnt say "reinvent the wheel", but "reinvent the car".
Perhaps Adobe is trying to create a wheel for the upperclass RIA programmer Flex car, and isnt making it compatible common designer/programmer Flash car. And when they finished the wheel, and they decided just to make a Segway for the Designers and Flash people to ride, that uses this new wheel.
You might argue that its more approachable for designers, and designers feel at home because the ui is similar. This is precisely why Adobe should hurry up and finish updating the ui of the Flash Professional IDE so that its ui is more compatable with Photoshop and Illustrator. The fact that Photoshop and Illustrator is the standard for designers are perhaps one of Adobe's greatest advantages. They could make the designers happy if they just make a Sprite inspector view with layers like photoshop in Flash Professional, instead of using the old "everything
is a movieclip" paridgim. Flash Professional has already upgraded to AS3 and in AS3 everything isnt a movieclip. So it would be nice if they could make views for some of the new classes and wireframe components.
This is the age old debate, update or start from scratch. I guess I'm saying that I think the hard work of updating to AS3 has already been done, and its just plain wierd that Adobe decides to build a separte tool for components, when they use the same AS3 code base.
Its just insanely exciting to just think about what could have been if Flash updated and brought on more Designers and at the same time linked in the Flex community. Thats what Flash has always been about! The meeting point between Designers and Programmers.
To go this far and quit just because of components just leaves me blue.
It seems that many projects stop at 80% complete and if the developers just spent the extra 20% on fine tuning things then they would have a very high quality product. In this case the remaining 20% is components, ui, and export. I understand that there are probably many things I dont understand, especially when you through in marketing, and product life cycle.
But I think Adobe could have done it, if they put as much effort into it as they did to make an entirely new product.
Maybe we should make some noise before its too late.
I'm still interested in seeing more links that show the logic behind the initial discussions of this debate when it was first decided.
pls keep me posted.
@nwfa & macsavers
Yes, youre right. it does seem to be their plan. I just hope they are just testing the waters. Perhaps after they do the initial selling of Flash Compenents, then maybe they could offer a free update to CS4.
As I mentioned above, the main reason designers feel at home is because of the UI of Flash Catalyst. UI's can be updated, and I believe Flash Professional can and should update itsui for the reasons I mentioned above.

In trying to install a Flash update on my Mac (version 10.7.5), I'm getting an "unable to install metafile" message after initialization starts (at the 25% point)-regardless of the site from which I download the installation folder.

In trying to install a Flash update on my Mac (version 10.7.5), I'm getting an "unable to install metafile" message after initialization starts (at the 25% point)—regardless of the site from which I download the installation folder.

Hello everybody, good news: after upgrading to Mountain Lion 10.8.5 I've been able to run the installer and all went fine.
Mountain Lion allows user to force execution through the context-menu (CTRL-click) Open command and it does work, just that simple.
So my advice is: if you want to install or re-install Flash Builder 4.6 on a Mac with Lion installed, upgrade to Mountain Lion or better to avoid problems.
Apple introduced some (not all) Gatekeeper functionalities in 10.7.3 and following, but apparently you need a full-fledged 10.8 to have also what you need to circumvent a Revoked Certificate error.
Since usually OS X has auto updating active, if you are running Lion you end up with 10.7.5 and won't install FB46. If you manage somehow to hold 10.7.2 I suppose you should be able to install FB46, sincerely I didn't check it out. Anyway it's simpler and safer to move on to 10.8.x.
Bye

Mac User: Why so many Flash updates?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for