Print 20 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 1 at 2:16 PM

Cites security issues

Apple has been critical of Adobe's Flash technologies for quite some time. In fact, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs published an "open letter" in April, bashing Flash for being a closed system and proprietary in nature. The company has been a strong proponent of HTML5 as an open source alternative to Flash.

Jobs was also critical of its power consumption when used in iPhones: "Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice… But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."

The company has now declared war on Adobe, stating that it will no longer pre-install Adobe's Flash software on any of its products, including the latest iteration of the MacBook Air launched last week.

However, Apple is saying that this move is due to security issues rather than politics. The firm states that there was a risk of accidentally distributing obsolete versions by pre-installing Flash. The onus will now be on Mac users to download the most up-to-date version of the software themselves.

Apple points to a recent incident when an obsolete version of Flash with several known security vulnerabilities shipped with OS X 10.6, known as Snow Leopard. Similar thinking about security recently led the company to deprecate its own version of Java in favor of versions distributed by Oracle.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Similar thinking
By Flunk on 10/26/2010 4:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean Linux, or BSD...

RE: Similar thinking
By morphologia on 10/27/2010 3:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
No, right on the money with Windows. OSX is less intrinsically secure than Win7. Being a less lucrative target does not make one more secure.

RE: Similar thinking
By mindless1 on 10/28/2010 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Security is ALWAYS about potential risk, not some concept but by using SCIENCE to asses actual breeches.

If you leave your car parked in a ghetto, doors locked but a $100 bill on the dash, it is far less secure than sitting in your suburban garage at home, keys in the ignition and engine on.

Security is a state, not an ultimate destination achieved by line item features or lack thereof.

Wanna hear something even more amazing? Win2K running Firefox and Thunderbird (or your choice of 3rd party apps for these functions) is more secure than out of box WinXP, Vista, or Win7 running IE and OE.

Problem is, people are idiots who are either themselves the security hole in what they run, or silly enough to try to prevent activities of code that already made it into execution mode instead of plugging up point of entry which is seldom the OS itself on today's systems sitting beyond firewalls, routers, etc.

RE: Similar thinking
By Trekie on 10/29/2010 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you leave your car parked in a ghetto, doors locked but a $100 bill on the dash, it is far less secure than sitting in your suburban garage at home, keys in the ignition and engine on.

It sounds like you're trying to say, or that you're implying that Apple doesn't need to worry about security as much because they aren't the primary focus for viruses/worms/trojans.

If that is the case, then I'm glad I don't own a Mac.

RE: Similar thinking
By mindless1 on 11/1/2010 2:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to say something similar to, most people not wearing a bullet proof vest are more secure than those that do, because those that do are doing so because they are being targeted.

I'm saying those that stick their hands under a lawnmower deck wearing kevlar gloves are more likely to get their hand chopped off than those who don't stick their hand under lawnmower decks.

I'm saying it is less secure to be in full body armor standing in front of terrorists than to be nude in your bathroom. It is not about forethought, it is about demonstrated risk, about what activity is happening to breech security.

RE: Similar thinking
By Fireshade on 11/1/2010 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
That's a totally illogical analogy.
Both Windows and OSX are facing the same threat: virus writers. So you analogy about wearing a bulletproof vest would correctly be: wearing one or standing nude in front of a terrorist in the same space. Now the terrorist needs to pick a target. The only thought that could occur to the terrorist is that the person wearing a vest is more important. But that's just a guess. The nude person could be far more valuable but simply clueless.

RE: Similar thinking
By mindless1 on 11/1/2010 2:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
No they aren't facing a similar threat. It would be like saying a police riot squad wearing bullet proof vests is facing the same threat as people shopping in a mall because "people with guns exist".

If you really feel that it is clueless for the mall shopper to not think they need to wear a bullet proof vest then by all means put on your vest and tin foil hat everywhere you go... but you don't, do you?

No, you've simply been brainwashed by other paranoid people.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki