Jump to content

Talk:Adobe Flash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Flash" was not renamed - only the software "Flash Professional"

[edit]

The introduction currently says "Adobe Animate (formerly called Adobe Flash and Shockwave Flash)". However, as far as I see, the Flash platform as a whole was not renamed. For example, on http://www.adobe.com/products/flashruntimes.html you can still download the "Adobe Flash runtime" and the "Flash player". Even the page for Adobe Animate CC says you can use it to:

Design interactive animations with cutting-edge drawing tools and publish them to multiple platforms — including Flash/Adobe AIR, HTML5 Canvas, WebGL, or even custom platforms [...].

So clearly Adobe uses "Adobe Animate" for the software, and "Flash" for the platform. I have therefore changed the introduction accordingly. Sebastian (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why pixelbender is removed.

[edit]

On scratch, lag is very bad because Adobe Flash removed pixelbender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.203.169.191 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Adobe Flash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Flash has been deprecated. DO NOT REVERT

[edit]

Adobe Flash has really, really, finally been formally, officially deprecated. Really. Please do not revert this important fact. Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. DavidBailey (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point of reverting. Nobody is questioning the fact that Flash is deprecated. The problem is the violent, activist manner used to show this fact. Using the "deprecated" word in the introductory sentence, and using excessive citations to prove it. This looks like someone is trying really hard to promote this fact. It does not look like a solid, neutral, encyclopedic intro. It can be calmly mentioned in the next sentence, next paragraph, section or anywhere else, without the "megaphone" feeling.—J. M. (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this #$%^$%&* has to stop. It's oppressive to the point of a dictator or an insolent Apple fanboy. Re-writen that **** to tone that Mussolini **** down.
The citations were put in because it keeps getting reverted. By the way, check other deprecated media platforms. You'll see that the lede is written the same way. Deprecation matters because it states that it is no longer considered current, but rather legacy technology. It impacts everything about the technology. DavidBailey (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint, with which I also agree, is the WP:REFBOMBing to support such a simple claim. A single ref is sufficient. Pick the one most authoritative. I observe that the use of a single ref is exactly what your Microsoft Silverlight example does. I also observe that in this edit of yours, the content is already there in the very next sentence. That, coupled with your edit-summary of "unauthenticated edit warriors are removing that Adobe has deprecated Adobe Flash" for that edit, makes it clear that your edit is blind edit-warring, whereas others are merely trying to work out the level of sourcing and editorial way to include the idea. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That duplicate content was added by anonymous editors after my initial edits. Switched to one reference. DavidBailey (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've reduced to one ref and you and other editors have removed your (collective) duplicated content, it looks reasonable now. Thanks all! DMacks (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Adobe Flash Platform is NOT deprecated!

[edit]

The Adobe Flash Platform is NOT deprecated as it reads in the first sentence! The end-of-life announcement entirely focuses on the "Flash Player" and the "browser plugin" environment and NOT on the "Flash Platform" ecosystem!! The Flash Player EOL announcement and the clarifications are made on a same day by Chris Campbell, the product manager at Adobe Systems. The Adobe's commitment to the platform (excluding the deprecated Flash Player plugin, of course) and a discourse of a road-map is also considered in the forum post! Please, kindly remove the word of "deprecated" in the first sentence to not to provoke the misunderstandings!

Thank you :) --Ehsan.Marufi (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Flash is in fact deprecated. I quote, "We remain committed to supporting Flash through 2020," and "Adobe remains committed to AIR." Adobe AIR has it's own page. Feel free to continue editing there. Please don't spread misinformation about Adobe Flash end of life. DavidBailey (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your link and also Ehsan.Marufi's post again. Adobe specifically talks about the Flash Player, that is, the browser plugin (they also clearly explain this in the follow-up post). We have a separate article for the Flash Player. Stop confusing Flash Player with Flash.—J. M. (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
J.M., I have read all of the above articles and you have failed to show a single source that says that Adobe Flash is not being deprecated. I have shown multiple sources that say that it is. This is not just for the Player. For instance, Adobe has renamed Adobe Flash Professional to Adobe Animate, and has been adding features that allow publishing to HTML 5.

"Several industries and businesses have been built around Flash technology – including gaming, education and video – and we remain committed to supporting Flash through 2020, as customers and partners put their migration plans into place." --Flash & The Future of Interactive Content Official Announcement

This quote clearly shows they are referring to the entire platform and ecosystem, not just the Flash Player. If you mean Adobe authoring platforms generally are not being deprecated, please take your edits to Adobe AIR which is the only related technology that is not deprecated. You will note that the link you keep telling me to read is titled "AIR Roadmap Update" not "Adobe Flash Roadmap update." Any products that Adobe has called "Flash" are being deprecated, merged into other product lines, or rebranded. Times, technologies, and names change. As an example, we no longer refer to Flash as Shockwave. Again, please show any authoritative reference that states that anything called "Flash" is not being deprecated, or please stop reverting these factual edits or I will request dispute resolution. Thank you. DavidBailey (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for necroposting but they said "The Adobe Flash platform is not deprecated", not "The Adobe Flash platform is not being deprecated." As for why this part is important, Adobe Flash was not deprecated in 2017, it will be deprecated in January of 2021. Tommy has a great username (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Significant updates needed to three sections

[edit]

The text in the following sections:

needs significant updates. Many of the devices and platforms mentioned there are now of only minor historical interest. Reading this material is a bit like picking up a seven-year-old newspaper for IT specialists — dated. Rather than clutter an already tediously long article with yet more banners asking for sections to be updated, I've stopped at adding just one, which may prompt some cluey editor to check out this "Talk page" - and do something about it. Here's hoping …! yoyo (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2021

[edit]

The situation in February 2021 does not seem to jibe with the text. I routinely get a message from Adobe about updating my Flash. At the same time, I often run into interactive educational sites that tell me I cannot play without Flash or without a current Flash version. Kdammers (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific statement contradicts your experience? Can you find a reliable third-party source describing it, which could be used for the article? Also, Wikipedia is not a tech support forum, so if you are looking for help with Flash, we might not be able to provide it here. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do note we have the fact that Adobe is trying to patch Flash post Dec 31, 2020 to make it impossible to run; and that sites haven't updated to remove Flash content is not Adobe's responsibility, that's just lazy web site management. --Masem (t) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deduplicating copy-pasted content on Adobe Flash and Adobe Flash Player

[edit]

This page (Adobe Flash) and Adobe Flash Player have a lot of overlap, even some copy-pasted content. This is not good. Therefore, I propose we determine which sections belong where, and consolidate each topic in corresponding place (thus de-duplicating content and making each section complete). Furthermore, we can add "Main article" templates in place of moved sections so that people can find the info.

I propose the following moves (incomplete):

- EOL section is about Player, so should be on Adobe Flash Player (including "Post EOL support")
- "Content preservation projects" are about Flash content as a "platform", so they belong to "Adobe Flash"
- "Open source" should be moved to Adobe Flash
- "Availability" should be updated and moved into corresponding articles

Anton.bersh (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Flash templates" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Flash templates. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Flash templates until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is enterprise Flash EOL or not?

[edit]

After some googling, all I could find was a harman tweet from 2021 saying that support ends in 2023. However, the linked page says nothing about a 2023 EOL and the wayback machine also has nothing (at least on the day the tweet as posted). So, who's to say these plans didn't change? Is there an WP:RS that says that Harman ended support for Flash in 2023? Nickps (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad lead sentence

[edit]

Adobe Flash (formerly Macromedia Flashand FutureSplash) was, except in China, a multimedia software platform used for production of animations, rich internet applications, desktop applications, mobile apps, mobile games, and embedded web browser video players.

This sentence is confusing. The obvious way to read it would imply that Flash is not, or was not, a multimedia platform in China, which is nonsense. It doesn’t even specify that what it actually means is that Flash isn’t deprecated in China. 138.185.195.46 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the except in China part as a footnote and tried to explain what it means. The biggest problem right now is that there is a comment telling us not to change "is" to "was" and yet that is exactly what has been done. If the comment reflects consensus we need to change it back, otherwise we need to remove it. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I changed was back to is. Nickps (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adobe_Flash&oldid=1252203799"