3/2/2005
The issue of Flash Player bundling: A matter of trust
It's great to know that Macromedia monitors these humble blog sites, and it's even better to know that they're concerned about what we have to say. I just received a comment from John Dowdell of Macromedia Support asking me to help clarify my recent post regarding Macromedia's packaging of the Yahoo! Toolbar with the Flash player for certain Web visitors.
After responding to his post, I realized others may not quite understand my position, either (It was classified under "rant" after all), so I figured I'd post his message and my response here. So here we go:
Hi, I'd like to be able to clearly present your concern to my partners, could you check me here, please? How would you rank the following concerns which I could synthesize out of your post?
– Don't like Yahoo
– Gives Java or C++ arguments some ammo
– Not clear of future scope of ways to shift Flash costs from authoring tools to corporations
– Not sure of spyware/malware risks or implications
– Other(The FAQ on the site advises that the only people who see this must (a) surf IE/Win (b) must click "GetFlash" link instead of the normal ActiveX (c) must not already have Yahoo Toolbar installed. Web search term of "site:macromedia.com yahoo toolbar" brings up more.)
Could you help me to relay your core concerns most effectively? Thanks!
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
And my response, which still may or may not be coherent:
Thanks for the comment, John! It's great to see Macromedia is monitoring the blogs and fielding our questions. In return, I'll do my best to answer yours, too. Hopefully, I'll speak sensibly on each of your points:
How would you rank the following concerns which I could synthesize out of your post?Don't like Yahoo
This is not an issue at all. In fact, I feel rather sorry for Yahoo in this; I truly wish them no harm, and in fact, I use and enjoy many of their services.
I do wish them good luck with their toolbar, but I hope they'll find better ways of marketing it than packaging it with other company's software. In my mind at least, such arrangements always seem to cheapen my view of both party's wares, as if neither could stand on it's own.
Gives Java or C++ arguments some ammo
It rather does, don't you think? If I can download the Java Virtual Machine WITHOUT the fear of installing "something extra," then, as a business, I'd rather search for Web apps built on THAT technology than attempt to find ones built on something that now seems to be a marketing ploy.
It's the proverbial "slippery slope:" First, the flash player comes bundled with something I'm not interested in otherwise. Why should I not expect the next version to have even more "marketing potential" built in? Will Flash Player 8 feature content-sensitive ad delivery built in?
And no I'm not saying this is the inevitable outcome, but I think you might understand the reason for suspicion. Just about everybody on the Web has faced unwanted advertising, and anything we can do to nip it in the bud is welcome. Once I've paid for Flash MX 2004 Studio Professional and spent time and money developing an application it it, I don't want my potential clients to see MY work as being associated with third-party advertisers.
Not clear of future scope of ways to shift Flash costs from authoring tools to corporations
I'm not sure I understand this, but I think I may have addressed it above. In short, I see the Flash player as the means to deliver new software to the public: a Runtime or Virtual Machine, to be specific. If the runtime itself is being used for marketing purposes, I'll look for one that doesn't.
Not sure of spyware/malware risks or implications
This is probably the main reason for my concern, but it's also the CAUSE of the other concerns listed here.
It's not so much the existence of spyware, but the POTENTIAL of spyware that is raised by this packaging. Until now, I never even entertained the idea that Macromedia would do such a thing. This was naive perhaps, but now I have a hard time imagining that the company WOULDN'T entertain the idea if a "partner" with deep enough pockets came knocking.
In essence, it's a matter of trust between Macromedia, the developers who create apps with its products, and the companies who will rely on both.
Other
As you can see, the problem I have is not with Yahoo or the idea that Macromedia needs to make money, too. But when I develop an application for a client and tell him he'll need to download the latest Flash player from your Web site, I don't want to feel like I'm sending him to FreeIpods.com or some other "GET YOUR FREE GIFT FOR FILLING OUT THIS SURVEY" site. Macromedia is better than that, and I hope it'll stay that way. (Promote Yahoo Toolbar like crazy all over the Macromedia site if you need to, but just don't make my clients feel like they're being asked to download something they wouldn't otherwise.)
Hope this helps, John, and again, thanks for asking!
(VeryVito)
abuse@turdhead.com
Hope this helps others, too!
66 Responses to “The issue of Flash Player bundling: A matter of trust”
So what do you think?
Please note that to protect our readers from spammers and other sleazeballs, we moderate all comments on this board. (And be assured, we'd sooner die than sell, give away or otherwise sully the reputation of your email address!)
Excellent, thanks… those specific concerns will be easier to carry into internal discussions.
But first: “…these humble blog sites…” I think you may be underestimating actual effects here… sample internal conversation: “Turdhead had a post on it today… yeah, that’s tee, you, are, dee, yeah yeah… you know, that guy with the T-shirts you lusted after at the conference, that’s right….”
(I can confirm that business development and exec staff have a high awareness of mailing lists, weblogs and similar discussions… “how will people react online?” is a frequent topic, so it’s good to get such specific feedback for shaping things to work for everyone.)
Let’s see, we’ve got: “may make internal evangelism harder” (when a pro-JVM staffer uses this to argue against your solution, eg)… “not sure of how similar offers may be featured in the future”… “prefers engineering to be funded solely by authoring tool prices, and the Player popularity should not financially contribute to future work”… “privacy and security issues need to be rock-solid when associated with third-party code”. How’s that, any changes, additions, other…?
tx, jd/mm
[PS: ah, I see, CAPTCHA code doesn't refresh with page-reload, and text is removed... I retyped the above after losing it once and may have left out a point I'll remember later... I'm not sure how to force refreshes so two comments can be entered sequentially on the page, I've seen a couple of sites that way.]
I think that covers it. By the way, in real life, I work for a large, (i.e., BIG) company that is heavily invested in Java and other Web-based technologies. Flash has only just begun to make inroads in the minds of the Powers That Be, and while the company is now using it largely for e-Learning, marketing and assessment purposes, I and others in the company are finally convincing decision makers of its benefits as a viable platform for real client solutions. Any association with the dark side of internet marketing — real or perceived — could be a fatal blow at this point. I’m keeping my fingers crossed! – Vito
P.S. Sorry about the captcha glitch! We’ll work on that, too. Thanks for retyping, and thanks for the kind words!
MM is seriously jepordizing their efforts a extending future versions of the flash player’s intall base. It already takes much to long to get to a resonable % of users of any given player release. When you factor in the 75+% install base it takes for large corporations to make a version required, you have flash 8 in use by 2007 if we are lucky. Add in the bad press and the ensuing distrust from users and i think you can add more time to that figure. Even microsoft has the decency to uncheck as default all the ’subscriptions’ to spam mail they offer when you sign up for a hotmail account. Its clear the flash community expected more out of Macromedia and is shocked at this turn of events.
Well this discussion seems to be going on everywhere you turn in this community. (Completely irrelevant observation – fractured discussions: a negative symptom of everyone maintaining a blog??) Anyhow, I thought I’d jump in here as Mr. Head did such an excellent job of summarizing most of my main concerns.
JD you ask “How’s that, any changes, additions, other…?”.
I’d like to add the fact that the Flash Player should be the Flash Player and nothing more. Namely when I download it (or more importantly send one of my clients to download it) we should be installing only what is required to view the Flash content. I’ve heard the war stories about the Flash Player meetings where folks anguish over the justification of adding functionality to the player at the price of a small number of bytes filesize (myth or not the Flash player is still pretty compact and it took some effort). In that light simply offering more of a download seems rather contradictory.
Like I said this seems to be a popular discussion and rightly so. It appears to me though that most of the discussion is going in one directional. JD is doing a fantastic job of coaxing thoughts like those above but what I would also like to see is some Macromedia input on why this move was made. I’ve read the market speak, but would appreciate a bit more light shed on how the bundling benefits Macromedia’s customers.
Thanks.
And outfit the fucking Flash player with an on-off switch. Jay-zus.
Wow, this couldn’t have come at a more interesting time for my company. I am just in the middle of forcing my boss to pick up a few Flash MX 2004 Studio Professional licenses, but I am now re-thinking our technology path. We do online photo finishing and we were thinking of adding Flash widgets for a better high end experience (image editors, file management, shopping cart …). But I can guarantee that our clients will NOT tolerate (pay for development) at having anything that even SOUNDS like a spyware.
Hypothetical example: Safeway develops a web site, but because of the third party software, Future Shop banner ads pop up advertising Safeway products at a cheaper price when you use the checkout. Not cool.
Even the THOUGHT that third party Software could be spying on their shoppers experience would freak the business unit out.
I think I am now going to root around the internet and try and find out more about this. But even the rumor of this happening may have squashed our immediate flash development.
Ciao
Wolf
I think it’s important to realize that Flash is increasingly being associated with annoyance in the mind of the average user. After all, 90% of all Flash apps people encounter nowadays are annoying animated ads. (Or even worse: modal ads or ads with sound! I don’t know if it’s already possible with the current player, but it would be very nice if these things could be easily disabled.) Bundling extra software with the player will only increase this association, as (in my experience at least) very few people are fond of this practice. Why should I need to download something that I didn’t want in the first place?
I work in IT Security, not content development, but I feel that since the spyware spectre is raised here, I can comment.
No, the Yahoo toolbar isn’t spyware, but it’s NOT a flash player. For people to view Flash content, they need the Flash player. They *don’t* need a Yahoo Toolbar. Bundling unrelated software is a pain for everyone.
I’ve been involved in the development of corporate desktop images. Every piece of software that goes on there gets tested and vetted. I would be dismayed if we now need to add procedures to remove the Yahoo toolbar (which we will, completely, no way in hell is that going on a corporate image..).
To put it simply, and in terms your marketing people can understand and related to, bundling unrelated software *hurts* your brand.
I haven’t encountered this yet, so I don’t know all the mechanics. But, in my limited experience, the Yahoo toolbar, by default takes up screen real estate all of the time. This sort of addition amounts to a U.I. change that users should not be subjected to without their active participation. Seriously. Don’t mess with browser look and feel without being asked to. Ever. Not even with an opt out box in an installation window. I like google toolbar a lot, but wouldn’t want it to appear without planning on my part. Also, perhaps reiterating others’ points: As a user, I’ve come to trust the flash installer to do nothing but provide access to specific additional content. The result is that when a new version of flash is required I click install and don’t worry. If the situation changes and the process becomes click, install, then hunt down and try to remove “features” which don’t interest me, it has become more work for me to stay up to date. Bundling a toolbar with flash moves you one step closer to the Real policy of trying to milk all you can from people’s desire for content. Euphamisms for this from marketing are just that. I still think that Real might have had a chance against wmv if they had a quick minimal implication installation, and otherwise maintained a focus on their key technology.
Misc Daily Tidbits for 3/3/2005
Misc Daily Tidbits Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware Macromedia is receiving (and answering) a a lot of flack from several blogs over its decision to package Yahoo! Toolbar with its Flash player.
Does anyone know if there is a Flash 7 Player installer that does not
have the Yahoo toolbar option?
I am working on a RIA application for a Fortune 500 company, and JUST
finished convincing their “Information Security” people that it is
safe to force user’s IE browsers to auto upgrade to player version 7.
I do not want to be blamed for having people accidentally installing a
separate application (Yahoo toolbar).
I did a quick search and did not find an installer without the “Yahoo
option”.
Anyone know of any other installer options?
Thanks!
Everyone has their price, and that of Macromedia has clearly been met. The points made by developers here are outstanding — as it is I get called by clients when confused by spyware or browser add-ons that they don’t expect and I don’t want more of that!
Ok first off – toolbars are annoying marketing software.
Second — Macromedia will be running Flash into the ground if they want to start squeezing end-users for cash (even if it’s indirectly by trying to convince them to download a toolbar with the plugin). They’re already squeezing developers out of cash. Their flagship flash development product is already cost prohibitive to small business, individual users, and students.
The Yahoo!! toolbar just seems desperate.
My advice — cut the crap. Re-release Flash MX 2K4 with different feature sets at different price-points relative to the needs of your developer market. An individual hobbyist user who just wants to learn animation or a student who wants to learn Flash development isn’t going to be able to shell out much more than $100. A small business may need more features than the hobbyists and students, but isn’t likely going to shell out nearly a grand for a piece of software. Maybe the full-featured studio that employs a few people can afford the full price.. but there are a lot of people below them that can’t and probably resort to pirating the program instead of paying something for it.
Now if they start losing clients because the flash player bundled with the toolbar is turning end-users away — a lot of developers are going to be pissed.
Especially the ones that spent a lot of money on flash development over the past few years.
Macromedia needs to be careful. When you have 99% market saturation, the only way to go is down. Flash is already on thin ice because the most annoying ads are Flash ads, and now advertisers are starting to use Flash to do end runs around pop up blockers. If it gets bad enough users will block Flash with browser extensions or with their firewall. This could set off a chain reaction of users dumping Flash, site owners then finding Flash development not worthwhile, and then Macromedia getting desperate and making bad deals for cash.
And for the record, StudioMX 2004 Dreamweaver and Fireworks are slow and crashy.
Also, Turing tests for comments suck. Try using some of these methods to block spam.
It’s for this reason, I DO NOT install Shockwave player, nor ever promote using it for a given project.
Not sure when It happened, but now, on ‘install’ you have to ‘opt-out’ of some product your were NEVER interested in.
There is a reason why Google toolbar gets installed (on browser that dont come with it by default) – PEOPLE TRUST THEM to not meddle with the golden business rule of ‘dont annoy your customers whith crap they dont want’. simple really.
At my work place we’re already blocking Flash advertising, among others, so this isn’t a real concern since most people here wouldn’t notice the need for it, and any site that depends upon Flash for a fill-out form, with no failover HTML equivalent, is committing suicide! If Flash is going to become as evil as Gator/GAIN/Claria, it’s very easy for big corporate types to just disallow the whole lot.
To be honest, I simply won’t download future versions of the Macromedia Flash Player if the Yahoo! Toolbar is tacked on.
Hey Slashdotters, while you’re here… BUY SOME T-SHIRTS!!
David wrote, “when I download it (or more importantly send one of my clients to download it) we should be installing only what is required to view the Flash content.” Agreed. That is the case… Yahoo stuff is not bundled into the Macromedia Flash Player… there’s just a checkbox offer on a certain page of the Macromedia site.
Andrew also wrote: “what I would also like to see is some Macromedia input on why this move was made” I ran into Kevin Lynch today (Macromedia Executive Vice President, Chief Software Architect), and he was already working on a piece about the background, and how other strategic partnerships in the past have helped get Macromedia Flash Player on lots of desktops. I’d guess this’ll be online early next week, although as you might guess, I wish it was up already….
“Tom” wrote: “Does anyone know if there is a Flash 7 Player installer that does not
have the Yahoo toolbar option?” No Macromedia installer has any Yahoo code installed. When people in IE/Win actually visit the Macromedia site for an updated Macromedia Flash Player (instead of using the usual background ActiveX download, popular in that browser), then they’ll see a Macromedia web page asking if they’d also like to download Yahoo Toolbar. Don’t use IE/Win? Won’t see anything. Use the normal ActiveX install? Won’t see anything. Use IE/Win, click “GetFlash”, then click “No Yahoo”? You’ll have seen that dialog box, but you won’t download anything but the straight Macromedia Flash Player.
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
Please no more
Macromedia can most probably be credited with creating the best set of programming tools for making interactive websites. Other than the famous Dreamweaver and others, there is the much needed Flash too. But it seems that their success is going…
[Note from VeryVito:]For the record, John Dowdell of Macromedia has been working overtime this week to deal with this whole issue (and even plugging T-shirts for a site that’s caused him a lot of pain lately!), and I can only commend him for his work. I can’t say I agree with the decisions of his company, but it gives me hope knowing somebody like him is working inside it.
And John, I hope you’re getting overtime for this!
I may just have to buy you a T-shirt myself…
That’s the biggest problem I’ve got with Flash/Shockwave/whatever players: that’s all I’d want – the player, not somebody’s hallucination of a “helpful toolbar” or any other bundling crap. Truth is, I’ve got Shockwave & Flash turned OFF in my browser because of all the fscking ads, gizmos, trashy animations, and other wastes of bandwidth for casual web surfing.
hink this is, sadly, another case of the end-user paying the bills for corporate mismanagement. It is not my responsibility (nor that of any other end-user) to pay off the debts incurred from Macromedia’s inability to turn a profit from Flash. If this is indeed a matter of leveraging development costs for future versions of Flash then it serves as a strong indication that business model on which Flash was developed is fundamentally flawed. It seems counterintuitive to trade your biggest asset (your end-user population) for a few quick bucks; in the long run you are doing everyone (yourself included) a disservice. You will be much better off if you bite the bullet and treat the illness, not the symptoms.
We recently finished a project that was 2 years in the making and it relies heavily on Flash. This news is VERY disturbing to say the least. As a custom who purchased Flash MX 2004 Professional, I put a certain amount of trust in Macromedia that users will have free and unadulterated access to the Flash Player (current and future versions). I can’t believe Macromedia would even consider this let along approve of it. Alot of work has been put into utilizing Flash that it would take ALOT of work to use a different technology. I am extremely disappointed in Macromedia’s decision. And it will probably have a permanent impact on my view of the company. How will I ever be able to trust that my customers won’t be negatively effected by Macromedia’s decisions?
*a disappointed paying customer*
This issue caused me to totally re-evaluate my use of Flash in all current and future web development work. All of those lurking issues I was able to subconsciously stifle (“monopoly!”, “closed source!”, …) due to the high quality of Flash are now exploding to the surface.
Flash has achieved a TOLERABLE MONOPOLY position due to the quality of the product and harmless business practices.
This single move obliterates both of these exceptions: by 1) immensely lowering the quality of the product and 2) raising into question the trust people have come to place in the product and company.
As a previous poster commented, with such a high market saturation, the only way to go is down. And Macromedia just dumped a bucket of sleezy Yahoo!-branded e-grease down the slide.
I’m gonna go find another sandbox before my own pants get soiled.
Macromedia,
Please do not bundle any third party software with the Flash Player, this would only cheapen the reputation of your software. I do not consider the Yahoo! toolbar as spyware, and actually use and like Yahoo!, but the ‘bundle’ of the 2 unrelated apps make you appear desperate. A lot of companies are very strict about what software can be installed on company computers, this might close quite a few doors on you. The Flash Player should remain the Flash Player and NOTHING MORE. Keep it clean! Thanks!
Flashblock is an extension for the Mozilla and Firefox browsers that takes a pessimistic approach to dealing with Macromedia Flash content on a webpage and blocks ALL Flash content from loading, and Shockwave. It then leaves a placeholder on the page that allows you to click to view the Flash content. Available at http://flashblock.mozdev.org/. PROBLEM SOLVED.
BTW: I wouldn’t trust Yahoo’s toolbar for a nanosecond. Nothing but TROUBLE. And this isn’t the first release of MM Flash that has tried to bundle spyware with it (with the default set to INCLUDE it with the player download). You have to be extremely careful how you answer the question [not too hard for readers of this blog, I'm sure, but perilous for the average corporate end-user].
Before, Flash was just annoying. It served the purpose of a uniform means of displaying a webpage which was chock full of animations, sound, etc. Ie, step away from complexities of Java/Javascript and the various DOMs. But now this. Jeez. Wonder if they watch the news about people being pissed about adware/spyware/malware. Kind of makes you wonder who made the executive decision to stick adverts into each and every flash player so that Yahoo! gets to be promoted, even on sites which might be competing against Yahoo! and use flash… or rather “used to use flash”.
Macromedia Madness? I truly hope not.
It appears that Macromedia, for some insane (but doubtless "business") reason have decided to start bundling the Yahoo! Toolbar with the Flash player. You have the option to download the Flash player alone, but it’s not the default option -…
“When people in IE/Win actually visit the Macromedia site for an updated Macromedia Flash Player (instead of using the usual background ActiveX download, popular in that browser), then they’ll see a Macromedia web page asking if they’d also like to download Yahoo Toolbar.”
While this is true, you are forgetting the most important part – that you are defaulting your radio buttons to the download of both Flash Player and Yahoo! Toolbar, rather than the standalone Flash Player. It’s fine to offer the toolbar with the player, but considering that most people will click “install” without reading a word otherwise (this is a large percentage of the IE/Win crowd), you are essentially making users download the Yahoo! toolbar without their consent. In the case that someone does install the bundle because they saw “Install Now” before seeing the choices they’re presented with, then your “offer” is really little more than a surprise to the end-user that they may or may not want on their system.
I spend a lot of time cleaning computers plagued with spyware, adware, and the like. While Yahoo! Toolbar isn’t neceassarily adware or spyware, it is an unwanted feature that I remove from many computers due to the screen real-estate problem. The first time I receive a call from someone asking how Yahoo! Toolbar ended up on their computer, and it turns out they had unknowingly downloaded it packaged with Flash Player, I will be very displeased with Macromedia’s decision on this matter, and have to start advising people to “be careful when downloading Flash Player.” And if people have to be careful about doing something, most won’t bother with the task at all.
Three comments:
1. Amen, Joe User: provide a way to turn Flash off. By default. Without disabling it entirely. As Mozilla and CSS hacks (click to play) show, if you don’t, somebody else will.
2. Spyware/adware sucks. Yahoo’s on my list of “avoid if possible” companies, both through their own past tricks, and the company they keep (SBC). MM: stay clear.
3. Nielsen was almost right. Flash is 99.9% annoying as hell. With a Click to Play CSS hack, even the damned placeholders are annoying enough. I only installed the player a month or so back, and I mostly regret it.
Macromedia: don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re Microsoft and can shit all over the public. Hell, Microsoft can’t even do that anymore.
All points have been made already, so I’ll just say this:
Maybe we developers finally have to swallow a point the Flash-haters have made all along:
This is what you get when you bet on proprietary technology.
This sounds a lot like the strategy followed by Real. We all know how well that served them, ha ha.
Leon
I think the Firefox extension Flashblock is wonderful. It obviates the reason I had two icons on my desktop (one for “install flash” and one for “remove flash”). If Macromedia really wants to avoid becoming known as the creation program for the most annoying ads on the web, why not put an option in the context menu to immediately STOP the animation of a flash ad. At this point, I consider them to be the sidekick of the “Web Annoyance” crowd, not the creator of useful web products.
I can pretty much guarantee MM that the government agency I work for will not install a toolbar on our system images. I have worked for the Air Force, the Pentagon, HUD, Department of Education, and others in the past and I bet the administrators there would also prefer to remove Flash than to install a tool bar. Spyware and inexperenced users is a real problem at times.
MM, you have lost focus on what is important – Providing a quality product to clients. People are not stupid, and you will lose customers over this. Personally, I will be very careful about updating Flash player in the future.
Good luck trying to force software onto people’s computers, MM, you’re going to need it.
I am also very disappointed with Macromedia’s decision. Although the Yahoo toolbar probably isn’t spyware, I guess the only thing MM has achieved here is to give developers a hard time persuading their customers that Flash is good for them. As if it waasn’t hard enough. I just read all the comments here and didn’t find a single one that approves of MM’s latest move. I don’t think JD or Kevin Lynch’s article will be successfull in justifying it. I don’t think even disabling the Yahoo option by default will do, since Yahoo would probably never agree to that.
Maybe the only way to restore the trust of MM’s developer community is simply to remove the third-party software. I know that’s the only thing that would do for me. I hope MM comes to its senses, otherwise, people might start migrating to open-source projects, Java or similar. Macromedia, don’t become Micromedia.
I will say this to John Dowdell, and in turn to the folks at Macromedia.
A) Next time MM decides to make a UI or Workflow change, ASK the
community. The corporate decision to conduct an add-on with Yahoo
without consulting the community (and I have to believe they didn’t tell
anyone about this, test it with the public, or research this in any
significant way otherwise it would have been leaked to Slashdot or some
other party long ago.) was probably the worst example of business strategy
Macromedia has ever done. Whoever is responsible for this fiasco has set the
progress Flash has made into corporations back years. YEARS.
B) You made my work harder for me. I’m currently in the process of
building a very important Flash application into an organization, and you
have made my business process as a consultant that much harder. If you think
even for a moment any corporation with their ear to the ground for
anti-flash propaganda (and anyone with connections to an IT person knows
about this mess now) hasn’t heard about this, you are vastly mistaken.
C) Way to dilute the user base! Microsoft is passing around a
bottle of champagne with this move, and you’ve opened up the door to any
other 3rd party solution that will further dilute the user base away from
the Macromedia player.
D) Note to self, need to do a background check on MM’s board of
directors… Are you sure whoever decided on this isn’t on Microsoft’s
payroll? This would make a great example of corporate sabotage.
Okay, on the last item I’m playing conspiracy theorist, but let’s face it.
This was a lousy move. You’ve got the technocratic elite (just look at
Slashdot, let alone blogs like this) up in arms over something that could be
easily remedied, and I don’t think even having a process to ‘disable’ the
toolbar in an the interface is remotely acceptable. As developers (and
corporate end-users for Pete’s sake), 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.
Also, This opens up the door for advertising to be sent preceding what is
supposed to be a design/logo 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 this 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
this. This is a ‘design and programming environment’, not you or yahoo’s
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 toolbar could contain yet another add-on from yet another
company I didn’t expect to have to deal with before.
John, please pass this on to Macromedia and make them change this path
before this gets exponentially worse. Take the Yahoo toolbar out
permanently, and let THEM offer an alternative Flash player if they want one
of their own with a toolbar so badly.
I work for a rather large company aw well that uses flash in almost all of our hundreds of sites. Where is it exactly this is bundled in. I am running flash player 7, but when I installed it, it didn’t put a yahoo toolbar in for me. Is this some recent addition to the 7 player?
“Where is it exactly this is bundled in.”
It’s not; that’s a reporting error, magnified by the Slashdot effect.
There’s a web page on the Macromedia site which contains an HTML “want yahoo?” offer. The only people who see this page are those IE/Win users who actually visit the Macromedia site for the Player, instead of using the normal background ActiveX process to get it.
The installers for the Macromedia Flash Player have not changed in any way, and have no foreign bits. That text on a webpage is the extent of the “bundle”.
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
As a flash designer/developer since version 4, I have always trusted Macromedia’s intention to keep the Flash end-user experience free from the commercial clutter that has undermined other propietry technologies. Macromedia’s decision to bundle 3rd party software with it’s player makes me wonder if my faith was misplaced. We all know the long standing arguments against choosing Flash as an internet technology, but just when it seemed like Macromedia was starting to gain a degree of acceptance amongst the flash-bashers, they go and do something as patently stupid as software bundling. This is a very disappointing development…
Not really related to the concerns of bundled garbage with Flash Player, but in recent years, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of flash is irritating animated banner ads. I am a Linux only person, and I can always tell when I load a page that uses flash, because my processor utilization goes straight 99% and sits there until I close the page containing flash.
Now, it’s not _really_ all that big of a deal, but it’s awfully damn irritating when I’m compiling something in the background, and catching up on the news, and the browser suddenly takes all the proc for itself, just to show me an ad of something I could give two poops about.
Hmm. An afterthought, just in case folks thought I might be running on a 386 or something, my computer has 384Megs of ram, a 2.4 Ghz proc. What on earth does flash need that many cpu cycles for?
Bundling software decreases enjoyment for a puny marketing venture.
I’ve written plenty of installers, and not one has any addons and tells the user exactly what it’ll do if they press “Yes”. Now, i’m not going to install the MS Java installer purely because it has adware in it.
Don’t get me wrong: Yahoo! are a fine company, but bundling software is low. Putting maybe a bookmark in is fine, but changing toolbars and the way browsers behave is what I spend 5 hours a day fixing, and is totally moronic. All it does is aggravate users, unless the users are gullible morons, or those who are appreciative of Yahoo!’s services being integrated.
Even so…. to be honest, I wouldn’t install it because ’tis made by MS, and the less MS soft on my box, the better.. glad Macromedia are staying the reputable business and keeping in touch with users
The decision to impliment this kind of offering amazes me for the simple fact that there are “users” (and I use that loosely) out there that will download, install and use the toolbar. The Macromedia site is vague at best as to what specifically the toolbar does… and the only useful benefit I see is the ability to search right from the browser, which of course Firefox has native. I had to learn that after visiting the Yahoo site.
I share the same concerns about security, privacy and the association with Ad/Spyware as VeryVito and many of you… so I won’t go into that. I just wanted to point out the “Search powered by Google” link in the footer of the Macromedia website… which begs the question Why offer a Yahoo toolbar to your users in a promotion when your own website uses the competititors service?
I really appreciate your responding to the community so quickly on this issue, John. But I think you’re missing the point. At least, my point. You say, “Oh, they have to agree to download the toolbar, it’s only with IE (of course), it’s only if they get it from MM instead of ActiveX” and so on. Great. But when I, for one, am looking to quickly get Flash on a new computer, I’m going to be clicking the big “download” buttons and the “next” button rapidly. I’m not on the lookout for insidious “bundle” offers, nor should I have to be. Maybe it’s a small portion of the user base. Fine. But your comments make it sound like you’re doing nothing wrong; every user is completely aware of his decision to download and install Yahoo’s toolbar. That’s obviously not the case. If it were, why not make the default to not install it? Certainly, since all these users are completely aware of their decision, they’ll all opt to download Yahoo.
Of course, that won’t happen. I imagine that in doing this, MM has signed some sort of contract and can’t back out of it so quickly as many web developers would like. But I for one will not download Flash or code any more software for it until any mention of the Yahoo scourge is remeoved from the MM web site.
For the record, the Yahoo toolbar is, at least in my mind, completely useless. It takes up space, links to an inferior search engine, and provides hooks into ad-ridden servics like their email and the such. I wouldn’t be surprised if it monitored where the user browses, either. Maybe it’s not spyware or adware, but it’s certainly bloatware and unwanted.
The main reason I prefer Macs is that on PCs, after a few months, if one isn’t careful, he’ll have a hundred icons on his desktop, half a dozen browser bars, ten superfluous icons in the taskbar, and about 25 processes running in the background that absolutely don’t need to be. It’s infuriating, and you’re contributing to it.
Besides getting rid of Yahoo!Toolbar, what we really need is a context menu option to “block flash content from this server”. So one only has to deal with a particular advertising site once and never see their content again. Sorry MM, but that’s how annoying the people who use your product are. So you can help us or be set aside as we find some other way to get rid of the annoyances.
Overreaction? Probably. Can you imagine the reaction if Macromedia had put the opt-out offer in the installer itself, and forced *every* user to opt-out? In this case, it’s not in the installer, just on a page which developers can bypass.
Well, no need to imagine the scenario above. Macromedia already did that to the Shockwave Player installer. Shockwave developers begged/screamed/ranted for a seamless install (like the one they are currently providing for Flash), or at the very least, “opt-in”. No change. Not much explanation, either.
So, yes, people are overreacting, but it’s easy to understand the misconceptions given the state of the Shockwave Player installer. It seems to me that Macromedia made the bed that they are now lying upon.
Regards,
Kurt
A Glimpse Of The Future?
The current Yahoo Toolbar debacle gives me serious concerns about the future for the distribution of the Flash Player. I’ve been happy to see the development of the Flash player remain under the control of Macromedia – if any serious…
I have to say I’ve been reading and thinking a lot more about this since my reply yesterday.
John- I realize you’re the point man on stuff like this topic at Macromedia and that you probably had little to do with this decision at Macromedia. It’s a horrible position to be in. I don’t think anyone blames you but in turn it’s natural to be defensive about your company’s actions.
To Macromedia – I have to keep coming back to one of my concerns, which has been mirrored by my development team. What will Yahoo (or Macromedia) be doing to prevent other deals they may conduct on their navbar from interfering with active Flash activity on-screen? What protection will be in place (from both companies) that will prevent Flash from being interrupted or effected by ‘malicious’ activity or spawned pop-ups, etc. produced through use or typical installation or typical updating of the toolbar? What security will be in place? What assurances and penalties will be in place to make sure this kind of thing does not happen?
Macromedia might be try to say “Hey, it’s not our toolbar – talk to Yahooâ€. That excuse just won’t fly with the development community. After all it was your deal that put it there.
We have to be able to trust Macromedia as a development platform. Right now my team is concerned that the integrity of the basic player is compromised (now and in the future) even though this is supposed to be a ’separate application’ under Win/IE, despite being placed via the same installer… Your telling me it is a separate application won’t be enough, because the difference is, steps were taken to ASSIST that toolbar’s presence. If it becomes something we’ll see a lot more of, it’s creating a honeypot for abuse. So please, explain what will you do?
MJ- I can’t find the specific discussion you’re talking about at the sourceforge link, but your experience runs counter to everything I know and have heard. The standalone Flash Player installers do NOT install the Yahoo! Toolbar (can’t speak for the Shockwave installers, which follow a different path), the only way you should get that offer is through the MM website download page- if you have Windows IE and no toolbar. FAQ point here:
http://www.macr.../faq/#section-4
If you have a Flash Player standalone player that installs the toolbar, could you point me at it for reference? TIA!
-Scott/Macromedia
The following comments are not facts, simply perceptions. Socially this may have to do with a lack good manners, breeding and education on Macromedia’s and Yahoo’s part for considering this. You don’t invite yourself to someones dinner table and force your way into their home do you? Of course not, this is not much different. Shame on Macromedia! And shame, shame on Yahoo for allowing their own marketing representatives to use them as a pawn to leverage their own (Yahoo’s) marketing objectives, it makes them look like a cheap carnival novelty. Anything for a buck, cheap and sleazy, get some class! Are they that far behind Google in quality of service that they have to resort to such desperate tactics?
Rant aside, the issue is very simple. If an individual wants the tool bar, they can install it. Plain and simple. But to force an individual to install the Yahoo tool bar is akin to a side shop vendor forcing you to buy something before unlocking the door to let you leave. Sure, the tool bar is free, but I though the right of “Freedom to Choose” was paramount in many nations and took precedence as an inalienable right! It’s evident that we’re being denied the simple freedom to choose, so I choose to no longer use Macromedia products (and have not used Yahoo for years now – I’ve used Google), since they are now going to start bundling with advertising – And educate my clients by sending them to this blog site.
I can echo the comments of many here. We have an XP Java shop and we are about to buy Flex (evaluating Laszlo) as a possible app container for some aspects of our business. If our clients are going to be subject to getting a browser toolbar in addition to the Flash player when we ask them to use Flash in order to use our product, this project is dead in the water. ie, we will not be buying Flex or anything else in the way of development tools from Macromedia.
Let’s give MM an ultimatum to take it off or at least give users the option to deselect the yahoo bar during installation.
If not we would add the flashplayer to spyware and adblock engines.
This is just a way for MM demise.
[Editor's note: To be fair, there IS an option to NOT download the Yahoo! toolbar; the problem is that it's not the default issue, and users downloading "in a hurry" may not notice that the default delivery includes the toolbar.]
“By accepting the terms of this Agreement, you represent to Yahoo! Inc. and its
affiliates (collectively, “Yahoo!”) that you are at least 18 years old”
Since when was the Flash Player age restricted?!
Not going to go any further as I have made my comments elsewhere and agree with a lot of the sentiment displayed here. What a crappy move…
We’ve already had client’s complain about the download. They didn’t want to deal with understanding the offer, then opting out. Also, an interesting complaint is that it looks very confusing to to download the plugin. This is probably due to the EULA and options.
What I find interesting is that all of this Yahoo business shows how really insincere all the comments from John and others at Macromedia have been regarding the tradeoffs in increasing the power of the Flash player and the size (i.e. download time) of the Flash player. How can they say they can’t increase the size of the Flash player for fear of losing downloads, then turn around and include a 3rd party download as part of the bundle? One would think all that valuable download time would be better served with an enhanced Macromedia product, rather than a 3rd party product that is only a Yahoo away.
I agree 100% – it needs to go
I realize the last comment in this was a couple months ago, but I feel I have something to add. I just went to a website using Firefox (NOT IE) and was informed by the browser I needed Flash to view what I was there for. Here was my experience. I click the “plugin missing” icon and am presented with an installer. Couple steps in, I see the Yahoo Toolbar option in my face, which for me *instantly* triggers a spyware alert. I pop open the EULA for it, and notice something interesting. The EULA for the Yahoo Toolbar has sections regarding privacy that actually have the gall to link me to other, externally hosted EULA files, and even force me to copy and paste the URLs to see them. In the end I find I have to read through no less than FOUR EULA AGREEMENTS in order to know what I’m getting into with the yahoo toolbar. This prompts me to close all four of them and google search for “macromedia flash player spyware”, because by now I’m -certain- there has to be something awful in there or else I wouldn’t hvae to read through four long EULA’s, and the checkbox to install wouldn’t have “and accept the terms of the EULA” flagrantly stamped next to it. I decide it’s probably safe to just not install the toolbar and trust that the Flash player itself is clean and any spyware that may have been there would be in the toolbar. I made that decision ONLY because I have grown to trust Macromedia in the past, which happened only because their installers did not try to load me with extra crap. I should also note that I was asked for age verification TWICE, one for 18+ and one for 13+. The 13+ age verification I recognize instantly as going along with a U.S. law about protection of privacy of minors, and I see that age verification on everything that I know is going to spam me if I give it my address. The only reason I can think of for yahoo toolbar or flash player to ask me my age would be to affect the legality of collecting data on me. The 18+ seems more odd, because I recognize it only in conjunction with my right to view adult material, also something that should have NOTHING to do with Flash player, I hope.
Points I feel are important to this discussion regarding that:
1.) I did not go to the Macromedia website and I was most certainly presented with the Yahoo Toolbar, and installing was most certainly the default option. I also nearly missed it because I was accustomed to piggyback-free Flash players that I could just click Next through and be done with.
2.) Even after trusting Flash Player for years, that one piggyback made me completely reevaluate that, and I wasted over an hour searching and reading to see if I could still trust that plugin, or if it had succumbed to the general corruption of the internet and I had to go without the content I was after. My decision would have been permanent had I decided (mistakenly or not) that it was now spyware and I could no longer install Flash on my computer. I was within inches of that after seeing Yahoo’s network of dozens of interconnected EULAs, before finding and reading this discussion. That is the response Macromedia now has to worry about from everybody who uses Flash, and the response Flash content providers now have to expect in conjunction with anyone attempting to view their content, and that is the core issue here. I get the feeling from John Dowdell’s comments that he seems to not expect this reaction, or to think it is unreasonable, but that is how most people over a “lukewarm” level of computer-savvy will react.
3.) I am on the verge of ceasing the use of another popular program, namely Adobe Acrobat Reader. The reason is, they have begun piggybacking demo versions of other Adobe products in the installer AND IN THE AUTO UPDATE ENGINE. Every time I install Acrobat Reader (happens more often than you’d think, I’m a “freelance builder” of sorts) I now have to deselect two piggyback options that have nothing to do with the ability to read Acrobat files. Furthermore every time I used it, it would notify me, “an Acrobat Reader update is available! Would you like to upgrade?” This of course was to notify me that Adobe Photo Album Starter Edition (I believe that’s the piggybacker’s name) was not installed and the auto-update wanted me to install it. I eventually turned off automatic updates for Acrobat Reader to resolve the situation. We’ll see if I can continue using it, or if I have to find a freeware alternative to Adobe’s freeware reader, and that my friends is a sad situation.
4.) By adding this Yahoo piggybacker, Macromedia associates its product through context to situations like the Acrobat Reader problem, and all other piggyback software issues, simply because you are doing the same thing they are, regardless if the software is innocent or not. My response to the flash player was to feel as if it was trying to trick me into accepting some term hidden in one of five EULAs that I would probably never find, because that is usually the situation when I see software being piggybacked elsewhere.
5.) Yahoo’s toolbar, while not CURRENTLY spyware, has the right to become it. In the EULAs Yahoo reserves both sections for data collection policy (which of course is housed outside the EULA somewhere I never got to) and a section about their right to change the EULA without notice. Next week Yahoo Toolbar could be the Yahoo/Gator/LimeShop toolbar, and it would be within their EULA to do so. Furthermore this has happened in the past with other programs. (Kazaa for one, which was not initially spyware but became it later. It also seems relevant that Kazaa died soon after it decided to piggyback an entire shopping engine on top of its file-sharing features.) Yahoo receives income from advertisers and hosts shopping and auction channels, so I see no reason whatsoever to feel secure in them not turning the toolbar into spyware.
So, while I assume John Dowdell has stopped listening in on this topic because of its age, I hope he is listening because I am trying to replace the cries of “I don’t like it” with specific, solid reasons why the public is, and should rightfully be, angry about this.
MACROMEDIA LOADED THIRD PARTY SPYWARE ON MY COMPUTER. AS A RESULT MY COMPUTER CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE I WAS TRYING TO REMOVE THE SPYWARE (OVERHEATED). THANKS MACROMEDIA! DO NOT DOWNLOAD MACROMEDIA!
[...] (P.S. No Yahoo! Toolbar stuff, either!) [...]
Hey! Long time no see. I kept my URL out because I notice you have a problem with spammers.
I agree with your points. Especially where you mention that the products cannot stand alone on their own if they have to resort to this.
Since my site is mostly flash content, I am forced to push the flash player installation on my visitors who wish to view the files, but ever since they added the Yahoo toolbar I have felt wrong doing so. It’s like saying if you come to my site you will leave with a toolbar installed. Toolbars have never been a popular product and companies resort to forcing it on people though bundled installations rather than coding something more useful than a needless tool with the main purpose of branding someone’s browser. Now I am getting angry.
I don’t like John’s excuse of it being “only” IE visitors that see it. “Only” 94% of visitors. “Only” people like me with IE. I know if the toolbar worked with Firefox, it would show up for them as well, just as Google is pushing their toolbar with Firefox. I don’t use the ActiveX method either (I’m against ActiveX and all popups) so I help Macromedia by linking to their site so people update their player. I even have a JavaScript detection method to send people to their site if they don’t have the player.
Some of my members save up a whole year to buy the Flash product just to create the content. Because of bundled software with the player for such expensive content, Flash has lost credibility as an interface medium of the web. Nothing is bundled to view other web code except Flash now. I cannot imagine Yahoo toolbar being bundled with jpeg viewing or javascript compatibility in browsers. Imagine visiting a site that’s asking you if you want to install a toolbar if you wish to view the site. If Macromedia were serious about being a mainstream web interface rather than a specialty plugin, they would not do this bundling thing.
Are Macromedia really listening? Lets keep it nice and simple for them.
Macromedia, please remove the Yahoo toolbar or at the very least make it an opt-in.
In the meantime we can all supply our end-users with the following url :-
http://www.macr...mcom/flash.html
which installs flash without the advert screen and the dreaded ‘Yahoo toolbar’. I’m calling it the ‘one click flash’.
[...] . About a year ago, a lot of people were questioning why Macromedia made a deal to bundle Yahoo’s toolbar with Flash downloads by default — a practice many pointed out was quite similar to the way spyware was included with other apps. In fact, many seemed to feel it was sneaky and untrustworthy. Since then, Macromedia merged with Adobe, who apparently didn’t have a problem with these types of deals, because they’ve now done a similar deal with Google for their toolbar to be included on Shockwave Player downloads. [...]
[...] Furthermore About a year ago, a lot of people were questioning why Macromedia made a deal to bundle Yahoo’s toolbar with Flash downloads by default — a practice many pointed out was quite similar to the way spyware was included with other apps. In fact, many seemed to feel it was sneaky and untrustworthy. Since then, Macromedia merged with Adobe, who apparently didn’t have a problem with these types of deals, because they’ve now done a similar deal with Google for their toolbar to be included on Shockwave Player downloads. [...]
I am on the brink of insanity. Help. Ii’m simply trryin to download FLASH PLAYER 9. A pop up interrupts the process and reads: This page provides potentially unsafe information to an ACTIVEX control. Your current settings prohibit running controls in this manner. As a reslut this page may not display correctly.”
Hi Michael — sounds like you’ve got your Internet Explorer security settings set to “High” (or otherwise managed to disable ActiveX). Try the following:
Select Tools, then Internet Options from the menu at the top of the IE window. The Internet Options window will appear.
Select Security from the list of tabs at the top of the Internet Options window. The Security tab will appear.
Select the Custom Level button. The Security Settings window will appear.
Scroll down to the Download signed ActiveX controls entry and select the prompt radio button.
Scroll down to the Run ActiveX controls and plugins entry and select the enabled radio button.
Select the OK button to accept the changes.
That should do it. (Although at this point I would feel remiss if I didn’t add “just junk IE and switch to Firefox and save yourself some headaches!”)
Hi Vito…HELP!!!I’ve lived with this “get flash player” pop-up parasite for a month.I expected Adobe to help me- HA!After promising to look in-to it two weeks ago,they cut me loose today.My computer is trashed I just got it,used. and had 2mo good use-then I downloaded adobe 8 reader and that was it,Seven people at adobe flat out denied it.I have reams of proof.For a 60yr old Luddite, I was learning quickly and enjoying it.Could I please have John’s address at adobe?.,
I would like to tell him about this.Right now I’m going to post my Hyjack This! log.Thanks for listening. cc
PS I have no adobe product on my machine now.