Talk:Adobe Flash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Adobe lineage[edit]

The info box at the top right lists the developer of Flash as being Adobe, "formerly Macromedia". While it is factually true that Macromedia was the developer of Flash before Adobe bought out Macromedia and thus became the next developer, the statement implies that perhaps Adobe itself was formerly known as Macromedia, which is not true. There should be a better way to say this to clear up this ambiguity. (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Codename Lisa (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

attempts to prevent reader confusion about adobe/shockwave flash (with and without "player")[edit]

I'm completely confused by the recent revert. I specifically accepted the correction of my error (which had consisted of saying that Adobe Flash [instead of Adobe Flash Player] is still called Shockwave Flash in Firefox) and used that friendly correction in my new edit, which was not at all the same. On the contrary, this new edit correctly said When this article talks about the file format Shockwave Flash, this should not be confused with the Adobe Flash Player plugin, called "Shockwave Flash" in Firefox for historical reasons. Perhaps the reverter would prefer a shorter addition to the hatnote, changing the current

  • Not to be confused with Adobe Flash Player or Adobe Flash Professional.


  • Not to be confused with Adobe Flash Player (called "Shockwave Flash" in Firefox) or Adobe Flash Professional.

and adding the longer clarification into the article when it talks about Shockwave Flash?

Maybe at least some experts on this topic have no idea how confused almost all normal people are by the terminology chaos around Flash technology. --Espoo (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias and criticism[edit]

Gosh! What a lot of negative bias this article had and probably still has. A good 70% of the content was simply complaining about missing features, broken features, outdated bugs and shortcomings, security issues, accessibility issues, and so on.

I've moved all of the obviously negative content into a new section called "Criticism". Please do NOT simply move everything into sections falsely titled "User experience" or "Availability". Sections that discuss the feature set of the platform and available software (authoring tools, playback tools) have been moved just below the discussion on formats supported (FLA, SWF, etc).

I've merged and cleaned up what content I can, and attempted to add some meagre information on application development on Flash, since the entire article simply goes on rambling about "animation" and "graphics" and treats "Flash content" as if it were simply "Toon Boom for the web". Flash is similar to the .NET platform in that both support app development, and Flash/AIR takes it further by making apps run multi-platform. All of this is not covered in the article.

I don't know where to begin, but the negative bias is obvious, and the lack of information takes this bias further by offering an incomplete and inappropriate image of the Flash platform and the possibilities offered by the same.

Wonderfl (reply) 06:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


What is the meaning and origin of the word Flash? Blonkm (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) because it's fast in performance and production. (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Update to Adobe Flash security section needed?[edit]

For the third time in two weeks, Adobe Flash has had to patch a Zero-day exploit. I don't see anything about that in the article. My source is here: -- (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It also had a security update today, but I'm not sure that a detailed log of each incident belongs in an encyclopedia article, or the article for just about every software product would be filled with exploit notices. Perhaps a generalized note would be appropriate in the Implentantional vulnerabilities section. — (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Complete overhaul[edit]

This article looked like it had been written in the late nineties. Every para only spoke of creating "animations" and "interactive animations" with Flash. Fast forward to 2015. Flash supports mobile games using Adobe AIR and Stage3D (Angry Birds and FarmVille are built with Flash, BTW). Flash supports apps with Flash Builder, FlashDevelop and other IDEs. Flash is a huge platform like Microsoft .NET that can be used to build apps, games, tools and whatnot.

Demise? Everything in the article seems to show "Flash is dead". Idiots. More than 1 billion video games powered by AIR have been downloaded from app stores. Newgrounds is a hugely popular website dedicated to online Flash gaming. AdventureQuest is another good example of the popularity of Flash-based online gaming.

For everyone who seems to misunderstand how "alive and kickin'" Flash is, I recommend reading these:

I've therefore updated the lead, fleshed out a complete history section and more, to indicate that Flash has been, can be, and will be used to build apps, games and a ton of more content. Keep rockin' with Flash.

Wonderfl (reply) 08:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New sections[edit]

I'm on a roll. 50+ consecutive revisions later, you have the following new/heavily improved sections:

Feel free to expand, improve or fix 'em. Section blanking will not be taken lightly.

Wonderfl (reply) 09:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Why on earth was the Availability info under the Criticism section? Flash is actively developed for desktop (FP, AIR) and mobile (AIR). Of course, Flash websites cannot play on mobile devices and that is appropriately indicated with another section under Criticism.

Before I moved the "device support" info into the new Availability section, it looked like FP/AIR was completely unavailable on both PC and mobile. Is this done on purpose to support the "anti-flash" sentiment that has been floating around for some time? (OccupyFlash? "Please uninstall Flash from your web browser because Flash is dead"). Ridiculous.

Wonderfl (reply) 09:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


The logo shown is outdated. The new one is darker. Could someone please fix that? --DeskOS (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it? I just compared it to the icon of the Flash player on my machine and they are identical, as best I can tell. Do you have a link for the one you are thinking of?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right. The files on my computer were a little out of date. More importantly the logo on Adobe's web site has changed, as as the image hosted on their web site [1] which ours is based on. I have updated the image accordingly on commons. It may take a little while for the article to update.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

server 2012 Flash[edit]

In server 2012 / IE11 (and possibly others) flash is installed by default by turning on Desktop Experience. Where would this information be best included in the article? (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adobe Flash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming name-change[edit]

See: (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As of 8th Feb 2016, Adobe have officially renamed/repackaged Flash as Animate CC on Creative Cloud, therefore this article (and presumable the Animate one) need amending accordingly, but this is probably a bigger job than I am able to do. EDIT: I see this has been sort of done on the Animate article, but it is still very unclear on this page that any change has occurred.Dutpar (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Have merged. I suspect someone in the past wanted separate Flash the protocol from Flash Player, but that wasn't clear, or being followed. Snori (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Biased and outdated[edit]

As previously stated in this talk page the article is biased and needs to be updated, which is why I added the appropriate tags.

As random examples, the See also section starts off with "Creative Cloud criticism" instead, say, "Creative Cloud" itself. There's a one paragraph section to promote HTML5 as an alternative. Highlighted quotes of opinions in the criticism section.

In the security section, also under criticism, it says "For many years Adobe Flash Player's security record[121] has led many security experts to recommend against installing the player, or to block Flash content. [122][123]" But the source says something very different "Expert says Adobe Flash policy is risky."

The other source is a guy writing about it on Internet Explorer! Windows and Mac have had zero-day exploits too, why doesn't he recommend throwing your computer out the window?

See what has been said before in the talk page, read the article, there's no doubt it's biased. 2001:8A0:4306:F901:4DAA:CA0E:710D:F26 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just removed four, yes, four sections of "criticism." Unsourced, original research (could very well be tagged) including categorizing a mere description of how Flash works as "criticism," repeated information... When you check this article for neutrality, it's very important to note all the work that has already been made. Since currently it doesn't look as bad, but it's still based on an originally biased article that was just touched up to make it more tolerable. 2001:8A0:4325:9401:B0EF:9576:1E2E:975E (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Removed a statement that wasn't explicitly criticism, but even worse, not corresponding to the source. The article stated that "Google announced that they would soon stop accepting ads made with Flash content due to the dangers of "malvertising" - malicious content delivered through advertising networks." This had a source and that source in that respect only read "Google said: “To enhance the browsing experience for more people on more devices, the Google Display Network and DoubleClick Digital Marketing are now going 100% HTML5.” The article is plain out lying, saying one thing, and sourcing something else! Compare the original sentence and how they distorted it completely, there was no mention of "malvertising" whatsoever. 2001:8A0:4325:9401:B0EF:9576:1E2E:975E (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. The article is biased against Flash but that's the best we can get on the politically-correct WP. There's a large anti-Flash sentiment going 'round, for whatever reasons, propagated by whatever party, to whatever end. Some say Adobe wanted to kill it from the beginning, which is why it bought of Macromedia and instantly killed Freehand, and doubled the price of Illustrator within 3 years of the acquisition. Note how all of Macromedia's products have not seen any much improvement ever since it went into the hands of Adobe. Dreamweaver? outdated. Director? outdated. Coldfusion? dead. Anyway that's another topic. Keep improving whatever you feel. All I ask is you preserve this one important section : Adobe_Flash#Mobile_support. Its still correct and needs more attention. Adobe AIR needs and HTML5 must be recommended for new mobile projects and websites. Wonderfl (reply) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"There's a large anti-Flash sentiment going 'round, for whatever reasons, propagated by whatever party, to whatever end."

Disingenuous would be the understatement of the year to describe this assertion. Why would anybody wonder why Adobe Flash is widely criticized. Every time I use it, I am informed that my version is obsolete and needs to be updated. The versions become progressively larger to the point at which one wonders what all is in them. I finally just removed all flash versions from my system and am using alternative players instead. ---Dagme (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Article is outdated[edit]

I removed the "outdated" notice above the lead. As such, I have already been updating the article to reflect changes (eg. Adobe Flash rebranding as Adobe Animate). Nothing major happened in 2016. If anyone has specific requests for missing content, please add your requests here instead of adding an ambiguous "outdated" notice to the top of the article. Wonderfl (reply) 16:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"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 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)