Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming The Internet IT Technology

Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware 520

Posted by CowboyNeal from the stowaway-programs dept.
SomeGuyNamedMike writes "I realize the thought of using Flash and Actionscript is considered beneath many Slashdotters, but here's this piece, anyway: Macromedia is receiving (and answering) a a lot of flack from several blogs over its decision to package Yahoo! Toolbar with its Flash player. Will your company develop Flash content knowing Macromedia is using its runtime as its own marketing piece?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware More

Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware

Comments Filter:

  • Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

    by Broke Mirror ( 862603 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:38PM (#11839987)
    In case it's needed.

    http://www.turdhead.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php?p= 53 [nyud.net]
    http://www.hyperology.com.nyud.net:8090/?p=90 [nyud.net]

    • Re:Mirrors (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @01:01AM (#11841635)
      I agree with his comments. I think you have really hit the nail on the head here. The packaging of the Yahoo toolbar cheapens the software, makes them appear that they have "caved" to the whims of SpyWare and AdWare that breaks so many computers today.

      I can't agree with you more, it should be an installer for a player, nothing more. Since Yahoo was packaged with the recent Adobe Suite and especially these flash players -- I find it appalling that something I DON'T WANT is forced on me (shovelware mentioned later on Slashdot in a few /. posts) -- and my trust for Yahoo has fallen significantly.

      If Yahoo is persuing ideas like those of all the ad-bots , spyware demons -- is there nothing left sacred ?

      With every application I install will I need to fevrently check all consistencies and read every last word of the EULA to check and make SURE that I'm not being raped? It certainly leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

      I've been really pissed that software I BOUGHT installed the F#$@#$ toolbar too (notice it's in the Adobe Acrobat Professional 7 as a "helper" toolbar -- jump in the f*cking creek !!!!!)

      Yahoo is getting slimy and bringing down once more respectable companies IMHO.

  • EarthLink will be doing Flash webmail... (Score:5, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:39PM (#11839995) Homepage Journal
    See here [broadbandreports.com].

  • Google (Score:4, Funny)

    by xCepheus ( 687775 ) <dntn31.yahoo@com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:42PM (#11840011) Homepage
    Ok... somebody get Google on the case to get us an alternative... QUICK!

    • Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:24PM (#11840305) Journal
      There is an alternative. It's called Scalable Vector Graphics(SVG). It's a W3C recommendation [w3.org], and adobe already has a free viewer [adobe.com] on every important platform.

      • Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)

        by ikkonoishi ( 674762 )
        Yeah I like this.

        I use the inkscape [inkscape.org] editor for it. Its fun having a wallpaper size image at 1k (For a simple image.)

      • Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)

        by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

        The Adobe version doesn't work in Mozilla 1.0+ and Firefox. It'll crash if you try and use it. The Mozilla developers blame Adobe. Adobe blames Mozilla. So nothing's been done on that. (Also, if you're using Mozilla/Firefox and turned HTTP pipelining on, it appears that Adobe's site really screws up. You'll need to set network.http.pipelining to false.)

        There's an SVGViewer 6.0 beta [adobe.com] that supposedly works with Mozilla.

        SVG seems to have kind of died out, which is too bad, because it's a fairly nice t

  • Everyone today is worried about the 'Spectre of Spyware' - it's not just Flash Developers or any one group. Just about any network enabled software developed today suffers that problem. The real question is do you need to question the security of any/all software that you use/develop? And the quick answer is: Yes

  • SVG (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:43PM (#11840028) Journal
    Hopefully this will allow more open technologies, like SVG to get a better hold.

  • Open Source Flash Player? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eelsfan ( 813526 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:43PM (#11840029)
    It is more than time for an open source Flash player...

    Anyone know of any?

    http://www.diaperdevil.com/ [diaperdevil.com]
  • I looked at flash and was happy to see that a flash *.swf file saved and run localy, can't do anything more then when its on the web... unless it's saved to a folder with a 'command' subfolder and batch/scripts in it for each command. Much better then an java applet saved and run locally, which can do anything.
    • A Java applet can be at least as restricted when run locally. Your problem is that you don't run it in a sandbox like it does by default in a browser.
      • A Java applet can be at least as restricted when run locally. Your problem is that you don't run it in a sandbox like it does by default in a browser.

        Sure it can be, but by default they made Flash more safe, and less usable for general desktop applications.

        Strange for a company which is now bundling other - questionable - software with it.

  • we'll continue with the prior player (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScooterMX ( 847124 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:46PM (#11840042)
    flash is a big player in elearning, and there aren't a lot of tools that can be used at the skillset that many content developers have. We'll just continue, and have our clients use a specific non-ad based version. Macromedia has done a lot to extend the web for a lot of good reasons. They've had some tough times lately, and I think that they really must have struggled with this before selling out.

  • Probably Yahoo pay Macromedia for it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:46PM (#11840044)
    Disclaimer: I never trusted Flash enough to install it, so I may not know that I am talking about here.

    Flash is successful. There is no real need for Macromedia to bundle the Yahoo toolbar with it, at least not from a technical viewpoint.

    Probably some Macromedia executives don't like that they just give Flash away for free. When approached by Yahoo executives who would like their toolbar installed on more computers, these Macromedia executives were happy to learn that they could generate extra revenue from Yahoo by bundling the toolbar.

    Unfortunately the executives of neither company had enough insight to predict that the whole thing would blow up in their faces.

  • I guess we'll be seeing more of this as time goes on. I wonder if Sun will follow suit and install the Yahoo toolbar when you download the java runtime installation.
    • IIRC the DivX player has included the Google toolbar for a while - and last time I used it (instead of using the K-lite codecs which include the DivX codecs), it didn't ask me whether or not to install the toolbar - although now it claims to be optional on their web site (or at least doesn't install if IE is not your default browser).

      It did let me uninstall it, and I know that the Google toolbar isn't spyware, but it just irritated me that DivX ASSUMED that I wanted a piece of completely unrelated piece of

  • This appears to be a paranoid rant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:47PM (#11840049)
    Some guy saw that Yahoo toolbar is now being bundled with Flash by default and exploded about how that might be spyware.

    Yahoo toolbar isn't a spyware application. I don't like it, but it's just an add-on app from a respectable company to help fix Microsoft's broken browser.

    Spyware is a very specific word. It means software that reports back to the author with data about you.

    I think a more appropriate term here would be "shovelware"... software you may not care about that gets installed just for kicks. It used to mean software that was shoveled onto a CD along with the main package, just because CDs had so much space free.

    • The problem is (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:07PM (#11840183)
      Flash is a platform. If you develop for that platform, you must convince users to download that platform.

      Part of convincing your users to download that platform is being able to let them feel like there's no ill effects. This is why web plugins have essentially disappeared, people are afraid or too lazy to install all that shit.

      Now Macromedia is selling the ability to get your app bundled with their platform. And if you're a developer for their platform, you now run the risk of getting upset emails from people who don't quite understand what a software installation process entails and just hitting "ok" over and over while installing going "I INSTALLED THE FLASHY THINGY YOU WANTED AND NOW THERE'S THIS WIERD TOOLBAR THING ON MY BROWSER!! WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COMPUTER??"

      This is not so good from the developer's perspective, and it raises valid questions about the future reliability of Macromedia; if they're bundling Yahoo now, what will they be bundling in 4 years?

      Anyone else remember when the Flash player was so tiny that it could fit in a java applet, and if you loaded most Flash pages without having the plugin installed, it did?

  • Not really spyware, but still... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:47PM (#11840054) Homepage
    OK, the Yahoo toolbar is not actually spyware, so let's not hyperventilate over this just yet. But it is kinda sleazy, in the typically advertising sort of way, to try to get people to accept software other than the one you wanted. It seems when you install Flash under IE you get the Yahoo desktop whether you wanted it or not -- unless you unclick the tiny button next to the great big Install button. OK, we can talk about clueless lusers who don't read what they are installing, but I think we all know people who will just see the big button.

    What's going on here? Clearly Yahoo paid a bunch of cash to Macromedia. What's the matter, Yahoo? Can't get enough people to install your software on its own merits? Have to resort to tricking people into installing your software? That's the mark of a bad product. A good product people will seek out. A bad product has to be foisted upon an unsuspecting public.

  • You're jerking my chain right? Did Macromedia really do that? Damn, i tolerate decent Flash movies, but won't go out of my way to sit through a shitty one no matter what the content following it is. Now, i guess i'll not be seeing any more Flashplayer anytime soon (been too lazy to install yet ... and now sure as hell won't).

    i guess an important question i'm forgetting to ask is this: do you get the option to *not* intall that crap toolbar?
  • most flash you see nowadays is ads anyways, like the "[verb] the [obscure noun] and get a free ipod" ads you see, and the ones at the top of slashdot. i haven't actually used a real flash app in a long time, except homestar runner and some musicians' websites. so i guess its good to keep around for those, but this is really low of macromedia. i knew i was ahead of the game when i dropped flash a few years back.

  • Meanwhile... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NotoriousQ ( 457789 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:52PM (#11840089) Homepage
    Macromedia Flash continues to not have a 64-bit linux version.

    I make sure to leave a note to all websites that use flash heavily for ads, that they did not even have a chance at getting any money due to my visit.

  • Um... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:53PM (#11840092) Journal
    Isn't that like asking: "Will your company develop content for Firefox knowing that the Mozilla Foundation is using it as its own marketing piece?"

    I don't care that Mozilla includes various related links with the browser, nor do I care that Macromedia includes other stuff either. If there's a business case for using Flash, my company will use it. Man, if people objected because of co-marketing deals, then nobody would ever develop for Windows based upon the desktop shortcuts that come with it.

  • As a pro Flash developer... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MAdMaxOr ( 834679 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:53PM (#11840097)
    It seems Flash is going in three directions:

    - Flex [macromedia.com] -- Enterprise Flash based on XML
    - Central [macromedia.com] -- A way for them to use Flash to develop consumer apps
    - Classic Flash

    Classic Flash is completely hamstrung to prevent it from doing things like writing to your HD, communicating outside the basic arena of your own web site, etc. They are really paranoid about it becoming used for *other people's* spyware/malware.

    Now, as far as Flash being spyware itself, they will go as far as the market lets them. If they, like any company, can make money through software add-ons like Yahoo!! toolbar, they will. But it seems unlikely that they will damage their reputation by overstepping, especially when the big money is potentially in Flex, etc.

  • Ugh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kiwidefunkt ( 855968 )
    Flash is really annoying, but there are times I don't mind it. Most band sites I visit are in Flash, and usually the site's style corresponds closely to the band's most recent album's style which is kinda cool. Green Day's [greenday.com] site is a good example of Flash I don't hate.

    But Flash ads? Flash nav-bars? Entirely Flash-based sites for products and companies? I don't think I'm alone when I say the web should stay HYPERTEXT based because that's what it is designed for. The web can be as dynamic as it wants
    • Good thing I never paid Macromedia for my copy of Dreamweaver

      Ahem... [macromedia.com] even by Slashdot standards, that's pretty sad.

      Don't wanna pay for it? Don't use it.

      Wanna use it? Figure out how to pay for it.

  • Turd Head, huh ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by uvince ( 411668 )
    I didn't realize that anything called "Turd Head" or a couple other bloggers constituted "a lot" or anything credible for that matter. Is there another news source for the "issue" the parent raised?

  • One Minor Detail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lax-goalie ( 730970 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:57PM (#11840120)
    The one thing that makes this palatable is you don't actually have to install the Y! toolbar -- you're given an option and can decline the toolbar install. Problem solved.

    Macromedia's been doing this for a while with the Shockwave plug-in, and while developers HATE it (including me), the revenue from yahoo's been a godsend for the Director team. (No, Director's not dead, despite what the Flash team at MACR wants you to think...)

    Still, I think most of Macromedia's top-level management are pinheads, and this is more proof of it...

  • I seen a admin just about blow a blood vessel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:02PM (#11840148)
    Man one of our doze admins just about blew a blood vessel yesteday when he installed flash on a machine and it installed that thing...He went in and immediately banned the site so yes it is gonna cause problems and it already has.

  • Firefox toolbar too? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by psyon1 ( 572136 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:03PM (#11840156) Homepage
    So are they including both the IE and the Firefox toolbar? If they dont distribute it with the FireFox plugin, whats the big deal?
  • I recently installed a new Flash player and when I had to fire up IE for a compatibility test - there was the dang Yahoo Toolbar. I was pretty distracted when I did the install and Macromedia had, I repeat HAD, a very high trust factor with me. I don't use IE very often so I didn't notice it for a while. I thought to myself "that's very short sighted thinking Macromedia." They then moved from the high trust level to the do not trust level.

  • How do I know? (Score:5, Informative)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:17PM (#11840255)
    So how do I know that they are not going to install
    anything else on the system. It does not matter much we banned macromedia's web site at the company as soon as we noticed it started installing yahoo toolbar. 100% loss of all trust, they just got placed in the same ranks as Real and Kazzaa
  • Most Slashdotters may well disdain Flash, but I really like the ability to integrate Flash with web services. The Flash provides an interface unatainable in regular HTML + javascript and it will run in many environments, including Linux.

    What would I like to see next? Flash compile directly to Java Applet!

    BTM

  • It's OPTIONAL (Score:5, Informative)

    by venomkid ( 624425 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:23PM (#11840302)
    I just installed it. It asked me if I wanted the toolbar. I said no. End of story.

    Paranoia.

  • Not Spyware At All (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stevemm81 ( 203868 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:27PM (#11840331) Homepage
    This isn't spyware at all... The Yahoo! toolbar doesn't do any spying or hijacking, and Flash doesn't require you to install it. You might install it by mistake if you're clicking through the install menu, but then you can just uninstall it right away.

    If it were spyware, installing it would be mandatory, Flash might not disclose that it exists, it would interfere with your use of the browser and you couldn't just go to add/remove programs and take it off.

  • Flash not ADA compliant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:33PM (#11840365) Homepage Journal


    I work for a US government agency. We will not use flash under any circumstances because it is not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. No big whoop, you might think, until you start to imagine what it really would be like to be blind. As a blind person, the internet holds great potential to expand the information blind people can expose themselves to, but everytime their parsers hit crazy crap like a flash site, it's basically a brick wall.

    So, for their sake, let's abandon Flash, once and for all. If not, let's use intelligent coding that routes blind people's browsers around Flash and to the ASCII content they seek.

  • Education (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HMarieY ( 316249 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:35PM (#11840370) Homepage
    As someone has already mentioned Flash is used extensively on educational websites. I realize that the average geek guy does not find flash extremely useful in daily life unless your into Homestar Runner, but it is incredibly useful in the educational arena, making websites for children much more interactive and useful. (This is my biggest issue with Linux: very few useful, well-designed children's applications.)

    I am disappointed to find that Macromedia is taking this route now that they have become a big name. I prefer to download only what I request without having to deal with "extras", spyware or not. I personally won't mind as long as they tell you before hand and give an chance to opt out.

    My other concern is that this may make my job harder when it comes to cleaning up other people's computers. Its bad enough trying to convince people that they shouldn't go downloading every free screensaver they like but to have to explain to them where even more random bits of software come from, sigh.

    In the end I don't hold it against Macromedia, they do have the right to make their money somewhere (yes, I realize that the prices for the developement software is pretty high.) I just wish they would be more straight forward about things, advertising it on their site like Download.com does instead of just bundling it with their software.

  • I think they cut the deal backwards. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anopres ( 768976 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:53PM (#11840478) Homepage
    If they embedded the current flash player in the Yahoo toolbar, I don't think there would be a problem. Heck, they could even make the Yahoo toolbar a fancy flash app.

  • What site do you block to stop the Yahoo toolbar? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @10:33PM (#11840735) Homepage
    What site should your firewall block to prevent a drive-by Yahoo toolbar install?

  • Don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by Timbotronic ( 717458 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:01PM (#11840898)
    I'm really surprised about this bundling. I used to work for Macromedia and keeping the file size for the Flash player to a minimum has always been a sacred tenet. Downloading a 300K plugin is trivial for most users, even on dial-up. It's the main reason Flash beat Java applets in the browser.

    Recently Macromedia actually experimented with the player, to see what effect increasing the size of the plugin would have on downloads. They found that once it got past a certain size (which wasn't revealed), downloads dropped off dramatically.

    So I'm really surprised that they're bundling other software in the download now. I've no doubt that the total size is still below that threshold they found. But there's always a constant battle at MM to add features to Flash whilst keeping the player small. This ain't gonna make that easier and any bundling that alienates the user base is pretty self defeating IMHO.

  • Absolutely unacceptable. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alpha_Traveller ( 685367 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @03:18AM (#11842143) Homepage Journal
    I don't think even having a process to 'disable' the toolbar in an the interface is remotely acceptable, let alone having to decide to disable it when people install the player themselves.

    As developers and corporate end-users, we can not accept something integrated with a web site to suddenly acquire an unnecessary UI element to join the browser screen, especially in something where the UI was supposed to be clean and clear. You will have single handedly broken a look, feel and usability factor that was designed for a client, and the client might just well come to me asking why it's broken. I'll have to spend time and money to fix it. In my mind and possibly reality Macromedia's going to get the bill for any hours of work I spend doing that, as well as the time spend calming down my client.

    This opens up the door for advertising to be sent, interrupting or preceding what is supposed to be a design, presentation, logo or splash...Why? Simply because I (or my client) was told to trust something Macromedia decided to add on for those unsuspecting souls who download the new player.

    The moment a board member of an organization I'm helping decides to call me in a rage over the Yahoo toolbar showing up in something that's NOT supposed to have any other UI add-ons, I will heavily consider finding a way to sue Macromedia for damages. This is a 'design and programming environment', not Macromedia's or Yahoo's excuse (or their advertising clients excuse) for a billboard. I don't want Yahoo's garbage interrupting my work, or putting it at risk in any way, which is a huge possibility considering a newly-downloaded component of the previously installed toolbar (even it it doesnt contain anything harmful right away) could contain yet another add-on from yet another company I didn't expect to have to deal with before.

    They need to change this path before this gets exponentially worse. Take the Yahoo toolbar out permanently, and let Yahoo develop an alternative Flash player if they want one of their own with a toolbar in it so badly.

  • Flash and Actionscript beneath slashdot readers? (Score:3, Informative)

    by twofidyKidd ( 615722 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @04:12AM (#11842307)
    I am a slashdot reader who uses both, and let me tell you something; from my experience, it's not that it's beneath you, it's beyond you. 90% of the slashdot readers couldn't build an interesting interface if you lives depended on it, and I'm willing to put money on that. I know lots of other slashdot readers in my region, and guess what? They know this too. I could code in something other than actionscript, but I choose not to. I like design, I like graphics, and I'd appreciate not getting chastised for this choice, just as you (the rest of the slashdot world who believes Flash is "beneath" you) wouldn't appreciate unfounded criticism of your choice of profession. You, just as I, realize your place and your importance, and without your efforts and work, there would be a lot of people scrambling to get shit done. I make things easy, VERY easy for idiots; the rest of you make it work. We know the world we live in, and we know that without the effort we put into quality work and quality code, this world could be brought to it's knees, and you know as well as the next /.er that you've thought those same words. I would appreciate seeing a little less of this sort of sentiment from the readership here, and just a bit more appreciation for the world beyond C98 code, or whatever the hell you chose to be your weapon of choice.

    Mod me down, do what you will, but I had to rant.
    • 90% of the slashdot readers couldn't build an interesting interface if you lives depended on it,

      I don't want an interesting interface, I want one that works. That's exactly the distinction 90% of Flash developers don't understand. If you do then good, Flash can be used well, but don't kid yourself that you're the norm.

      TWW

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close