Chromium Blog: Bringing improved support for Adobe Flash Player to Google Chrome

Bringing improved support for Adobe Flash Player to Google Chrome

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Adobe Flash Player is the most widely used web browser plug-in. It enables a wide range of applications and content on the Internet, from games, to video, to enterprise apps.

The traditional browser plug-in model has enabled tremendous innovation on the web, but it also presents challenges for both plug-ins and browsers. The browser plug-in interface is loosely specified, limited in capability and varies across browsers and operating systems. This can lead to incompatibilities, reduction in performance and some security headaches.

That’s why we are working with Adobe, Mozilla and the broader community to help define the next generation browser plug-in API. This new API aims to address the shortcomings of the current browser plug-in model. There is much to do and we’re eager to get started.

As a first step, we’ve begun collaborating with Adobe to improve the Flash Player experience in Google Chrome. Today, we’re making available an initial integration of Flash Player with Chrome in the developer channel. We plan to bring this functionality to all Chrome users as quickly as we can.

We believe this initiative will help our users in the following ways:

When users download Chrome, they will also receive the latest version of Adobe Flash Player. There will be no need to install Flash Player separately.

Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome’s auto-update mechanism. This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions.

With Adobe's help, we plan to further protect users by extending Chrome's “sandbox” to web pages with Flash content.

Improving the traditional browser plug-in model will make it possible for plug-ins to be just as fast, stable, and secure as the browser’s HTML and JavaScript engines. Over time this will enable HTML, Flash, and other plug-ins to be used together more seamlessly in rendering and scripting.

These improvements will encourage innovation in both the HTML and plug-in landscapes, improving the web experience for users and developers alike. To read more about this effort, you can read this post on the Flash Player blog.

Developers can download the Chrome developer channel version with Flash built in here. To enable the built-in version of Flash, run Chrome with the --enable-internal-flash command line flag.

Posted by Linus Upson, VP, Engineering

211 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»

Anders Tornblad said...: "When users download Chrome, they will also receive the latest version of Adobe Flash Player."

But how do I make sure that Flash does not end up on my computer? I assume there will be an option to not install it, much like the option to not install other annoying plugins or toolbars...

The future of the web should be standards-based: HTML, CSS and JavaScript. Not some old clunky proprietary plugin.

And why, oh why, did you just lower my expectations on the Google Chrome OS!?; March 30, 2010 10:14 AM
supernova_00 said...: ugh. and here I thought we were all getting close(ish) to completely ditching flash and you guys decide to bundle flash with Chrome. What the hell happened to open standards?; March 30, 2010 10:25 AM
matt said...: Clearly this is an attempt to get features into Chrome OS that other table computers don't have. (tablet computers that might be coming out shortly from a fruity company). Automatic updates of plugins is necessary to keep the model of effortless updates for Chrome OS.; March 30, 2010 10:30 AM
Joel Fiser said...: Google correctly recognizes the Flash plug-in as one of the main engines that drive innovation on the Web.

So - rather than accede to Apple's ridiculous "solution" of trying to kill an excellent - but needs improvement - technology, Google is trying to make it better.

Imagine...; March 30, 2010 10:31 AM
cpu said...: @Anders: Yes, there would be a mechanism for you to opt out. In this dev channel we are also featuring a way to disable any plugin. Just go to about:plugins.; March 30, 2010 10:33 AM
Alex B said...: "When users download Chrome, they will also receive the latest version of Adobe Flash Player. There will be no need to install Flash Player separately."

Yuck. I sure hope that's opt in. If not, that's hugely disappointing.; March 30, 2010 10:33 AM
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen said...: How do I participate in the new plugin discussion?

Kenneth @ webkit; March 30, 2010 10:35 AM
Gabriel said...: People must be really dumb if they think HTML5 is going to kill Flash. It's used for SOOOOO much more than Cat's playing piano. The sooner you realize this, the more Google's move makes sense.; March 30, 2010 10:35 AM
Daniel Hansen said...: Just when we thought that Google was the champion of HTML5 they turn around and partner with Adobe on Flash to ensure that the web remains a mess of proprietary brain damage.; March 30, 2010 10:36 AM
cpu said...: @Kenneth: simply join the plugin-futures list.
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/plugin-futures; March 30, 2010 10:37 AM
Andreas said...: "The future of the web should be standards-based: HTML, CSS and JavaScript"

And what a dystopian future to look forward to. Do you actually do any real development? Forget the merits and flaws of Flash or other plugins; The HTML/CSS/JS circle-jerk is the worst thing ever to happen to any development platform.; March 30, 2010 10:39 AM
Troy said...: How is Flash not an open standard? The bytecode format of SWFs is published. There are open-source tools for producing SWFs. The toolchain is open-source and free. The player is available on the 3 major desktop OSs, and now on many mobile devices, as well as several video game consoles. It's virtual machine is open-sourced.

Sure, it's not standard-certified by some international organization, but neither is HTML5 (yet) nor is CSS3 (yet). It is a defacto standard, used by more websites and users than HTML5, CSS3, Canvas, etc.

Come on, folks, let's be pragmatic.; March 30, 2010 10:39 AM
Jon said...: Shouldn't you be concentrating on enhancing HTML5 rather than meshing the browser with proprietary plug-ins?; March 30, 2010 10:40 AM
cpu said...: @Jon: plugins are part of the HTML5 spec:
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/tag_embed.asp; March 30, 2010 10:43 AM
Jonas said...: Help! I'm dependent on an old version of Flash, for some legacy software to work. It must be opt-in.; March 30, 2010 10:52 AM
Matthew Fabb said...: While some users disable Flash, the majority use it and have no problem with it. However, there are security issues and generally to do with older versions of Flash. Adobe has always worked to keep Flash content backwards capable, only breaking older content when tightening their security sandbox. So for most users this makes sense and means they will be more secure and it will be one less thing to have to think about.; March 30, 2010 10:57 AM
Jason Gonzales said...: Why does it have to be black or white? Either HTML or Flash. Every task will need careful consideration as to which path is best. I am glad about the continuing development of both!; March 30, 2010 10:59 AM
Mat said...: I think people forget that the internet has grown and become more than just about delivering information.

Plugins like flash allow for the internet to provide users with engaging experiences.

Sure flash can be used for evil too, but don't blame the tool blame the person wielding it.

Kudos to Google for recognizing this!; March 30, 2010 11:00 AM
Joe said...: The new default will be to have Flash installed and auto-update? That's not cool. Make it an obvious suggestions, but not a default.; March 30, 2010 11:01 AM
DJ said...: This whole Flash v HTML thing is nuts. Flash is really good at the moment for being creative and making things NOW. HTML5 spec looks really cool and some of the demos look promising and I hope to make some great content with this too but NOT YET - it's too early. I want the best tools for the job I am doing today not the one I hope to be doing tomorrow. Yes maybe Flash should be more open. Most consumers really don't care 1 iota about open standards. I do, but making things involves pragmatism.; March 30, 2010 11:02 AM
Chris said...: Of note, at least per the post, is that this is coming to the dev channel of Google CHROME, not Chromium. If you were *that* concerned about non-free software, you'd be running Chromium anyway.

I welcome this if it means that Flash will actually be stable and smooth across platforms (esp. *nix).; March 30, 2010 11:08 AM
El Doctor said...: Do you think that integrating Flash into Chrome OS will diminish Google efforts in enhancing HTML5 solutions for its OS? Not a Chance!!

I think it will just open possibilities for the future

Google is flexible and open... Apple is quite uptight..
By the way, this is stricktly a market move against Apple; March 30, 2010 11:08 AM
graphicaliber said...: Whoa, this is AWESOME! HTML5, JS, and Flash are all GREAT development tools! Totally excited about this.; March 30, 2010 11:10 AM
Davin said...: I love open standards that I can personally leverage, but I think a number of you are being unrealistic.

1) The article already explains that you can disable specific plug-ins. If you don't want Flash, particularly since the current extension API doesn't provide for NoScript-esque capabilities yet (a better topic to complain about), turn it off. I do agree that it would be better to not have it enabled by default, and require a manual action of enabling it on the user's part. (going to Adobe's site could inform the user how to go about doing it based on the User-Agent header.

2) Flash isn't dead yet, and ignoring Flash isn't going to do anything for improving the reality that it is an extremely pervasive security issue in the current browser market. Face it; if you're still stuck with Flash right now, this is a good thing. If you don't use Flash, just turn it off and don't use it.

3) The important thing is protecting the browser and greater internet at large while still providing freedom of choice. It sounds like some of you interpret any support for Flash at all as a blow against the up and coming open standards, but since when should open standards come at the sacrifice of freedom of choice, or the security of those who choose something different? (again, I agree with you that it should be turned off by default, just like any other default browser installation); March 30, 2010 11:10 AM
El Doctor said...: Do you think that integrating Flash into Chrome OS will diminish Google efforts in enhancing HTML5 solutions for its OS? Not a Chance!!

I think it will just open possibilities for the future

Google is flexible and open... Apple is quite uptight..
By the way, this is essentially a market move against Apple; March 30, 2010 11:10 AM
timwaijers said...: this is great!; March 30, 2010 11:12 AM
Tek said...: Good idea, but Adobe must open source Flash before Google include it into Google Chrome.

Sign the petition to ask Adobe to open source Flash Player http://www.openplayer.net/; March 30, 2010 11:13 AM
Paul Neave said...: This is great news. Flash has always been lacking decent integration into the browser. Once a Flash object has focus, all native browser functions like text search, right-clicking, page back & forward etc become inactive. We need to bring this native browser functionality back. Ideally Flash (and any plug-in object) should be transparent to the user, so unless you dive into the web page source code, you wouldn’t know it’s Flash. And as well, I’d hope we can move past using the ugly object HTML tags and have better ways of integrating Flash content into our pages.; March 30, 2010 11:13 AM
Kenneth said...: There are two contradictory principles being applies here:

1 - Google Update's underlying principle of transparent updating. I strongly support this principle, because PCs have become too complicated to match their widespread use (imagine having to update your refrigerator every month!).

2 - Conversely, you either need to have to ask people to "opt-in" to getting Adobe Flash updates, something which contradicts the silent principle of Google Update, or else you are leaving open the same possibility of unethical secret installations that Apple Update used to put Safari on people's computers. For example, when I update Adobe Reader, it is constantly asking me to install various revenue-generating apps and features, so much so that I replaced it with a freeware PDF reader.

PS My experience of the huge popularity of Flash on the web, is because it allows web designers to escape the rules of good behavior imposed by HTML standards...; March 30, 2010 11:13 AM
Aaron said...: For more information about the underlying technologies involved in producing Flash for the internet, please visit the nothingGrinder blog:

nothingGrinder Blog

We have stood behind Flash as the most viable web technology for nearly 7 years. The partnership between Adobe and Google will make Flash Player the best option for deployment on the web.

Flash Is The Holy Grail

If you would like information about the ongoing debates betwen Apple, Adobe, and the HTML5 will Kill Flash rumors, please read this in depth article:

I'd Rather Be A Woz

As for the HTML5 video tag and the revolution of Flash Video on the internet, this post goes into greater depth:

The Future Of Web Video; March 30, 2010 11:14 AM
Tek said...: Good idea, but Adobe must open source Flash before Google include it into Google Chrome.

sign the petition to ask Adobe to open source Flash Player; March 30, 2010 11:14 AM
Aaron said...: @Tek the Flash Player isn't open Source but Adobe has made it royalty Free and released the SWF specification to the public along with the Flash Player source code to its Open Screen Project Partners.

See this post for more details:

I'd Rather Be A Woz; March 30, 2010 11:16 AM
Rupert said...: This is a great move. Google Chrome with the Flash plugin is horribly insecure because people fail to update it. Google Chrome + integrated Flash means autoupdate and sandboxing therefore making Chrome the most secure browser when running Flash.

To those who think Flash should be ignored, I would point out that the HTML 5 spec is horribly flawed in many, many places. Given these flaws, does this mean we should wait for HTML 6 to get it right or use a technology that mostly gets it right, right now? HTML 5 isn't here yet and until then, we have Flash which does far more right than wrong.

By integrating Flash into Chrome, Google have an opportunity to improve the Flash experience, at least in their own browser. Given that the vast, vast majority of users would install Flash anyway, this can only be a good thing. If you don't use Flash: Good for you. But go and see if your Mum plays Farmville before writing off Flash as an unused technology. Google Chrome is not just for people on the cutting edge but instead aims to give the majority of people, what they want. If you don't like that, either switch back to Firefox or simply opt out of the Flash integration.; March 30, 2010 11:18 AM
Patrick Gunderson said...: Thank you google for your pragmatism and realization that Flash opens up a huge array of possibilities for web applications that HTML CSS JS just can't do.; March 30, 2010 11:18 AM
Ryan said...: This does NOT mean flash will be more stable across *nix operating systems. Browser integration has nothing to do with it. The Flash Player it'self is a buggy old POS even w/o the browser running at all on anything but windows.

This sucks.; March 30, 2010 11:20 AM
Ryan said...: "Google Chrome with the Flash plugin is horribly insecure because people fail to update it."

BS. Google Chrome with the Flash plugin is horribly insecure because Adobe can't make decent software anymore. And because it's closed source.; March 30, 2010 11:22 AM
Joseph said...: Awesome news! Thanks for the willingness to be open and cooperative across technologies, Google!

The future is bright!; March 30, 2010 11:23 AM
Rupert said...: Another thought: This may help to get users out of the habit of randomly installing every plugin they come across, many of which will be viruses. If they aren't constantly having to download the new Flash plugin, it may make them less used to installing plugins generally and thus more wary of doing so.; March 30, 2010 11:23 AM
David Got MAUG'ed said...: Why all this Flash vs HTML5 comparison? We've seen Flash innovate to improve our browsing experience (of course we've seen the bad, but like any technology, you can develop for the greater good or abuse it). I am tired of these arguments.; March 30, 2010 11:30 AM
Ber said...: All you "pro-open-standards-everywhere-and-always-against-flash" people, you just have the brain of a parrot : stop repeating what other peoples says (especially some Jobs thoughts who cannot stand the fact that the whole web doesn't belongs to him) and make your own idea about the debates your are taking on !!

Your own words proves that you know nothing about what you are talking about : maybe Flash is not a freeware, but all the SWF format, Flash compiler and all Flash related stuff specifications are published, open-source and free !
Only the Flash Professionnal software, who is part of the Creative Suite, is proprietary.

And even my 8 years old brother know how to turn a plugin off, so stop complaining about "ho, could we have an option of not installing it ?...". If you cannot understand how to use a computer, then just don't use it.

And flash does not kill your computer, the way you use it kill it. Come on ! say you never faced someone asking you why his computer was slowing down after installing all the useless-and-totally-unsecure-freewares of the whole web !!; March 30, 2010 11:31 AM
Parashuram said...: With flash now on chrome by default, you should check out Flash Plus http://bit.ly/flashplus - a chrome plugin that makes Flash mre usable. You can move, resize, pop out and block flash using the extension. Found it pretty useful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHktLVF0yM; March 30, 2010 11:31 AM
~mono said...: the next logical move is to include "no flash" plugin as well and enable it by default.; March 30, 2010 11:38 AM
angel_o_paz said...: I think is good thing that google will do, flash is a great tool and with google chrome can be very powerful, beside the negative comments about flash that people are doing, flash is here to stay, is a wonderful software to design things that you can't with html and css. Maybe html5 is powerful enough but not so much as flash it is, I am a flasher designer, so this is a great news for me, cause I dump internet explorer & firefox for chrome, bravo google.; March 30, 2010 11:41 AM
Félix Chi (Yuyo) said...: Thanks google for making sense, Flash is and will be an innovating force in the web.; March 30, 2010 11:48 AM
Richard said...: HTML5 is good.
Flash is good.

The better both are supported is a win for the web user so I believe this is a good move by Google.; March 30, 2010 11:48 AM
Avinash Agrawal said...: Gmail site www.gmail.com is showing VERY small fonts. Other sites are working fine with this new dev version. Any ideas ?; March 30, 2010 11:48 AM
Tim said...: Is flash going to continue to suck on non-windows platforms, or will google be helping Adobe fix their well-known stability, security, and performance issues? The flash plugins on Linux and Mac regularly crash the tab they live in when running chrome.; March 30, 2010 11:50 AM
jakep36 said...: Officially stopping my use of Chrome as of today.; March 30, 2010 11:53 AM
Francesco said...: Awesome! I'm going to use Chrome all day, because it deserves my respect for this breakthrough decision. Thank you! Why boring people for a plugin that is needed by most sites?; March 30, 2010 11:56 AM
Colin Scroggins said...: Kudos to Google for recognizing that Flash still has a place on the web! Most users are running some version of Flash, and this change ensures that they will be running a current one. This is good for developers and good for end-user security.; March 30, 2010 11:58 AM
MuddyBulldog said...: This is disappointing and not because of what side I am on the Google vs. Apple or HTML5 vs Flash debate but because we as users should be opting in, not opting out, period.

The fact that you can disable it is irrelevant. This was the same flag raised by many other companies that have gotten hammered by the geeky masses for installing so-called extras in the past.

Google doesn't get a pass for being Google and they don't get a pass just because HTML5 vs Flash is a hot topic right now and they've "picked a side". It's not a core functionality and should be opt-in only. Checking to see if the installed version is current like Firefox does is fine. Installing the current version by default is not.

Of course this is only happening in the dev channel right now. What happens as it move to beta and release is what matters more.; March 30, 2010 11:58 AM
Francesco said...: @jakep36: why? it's good news! Think about fonts, video, 3d, etc. Would you wait 3 years again waiting for html5 (with same or worse performances)?; March 30, 2010 11:58 AM
Chris Adams said...: This seems premature given the lack of something equivalent to ClickToFlash which allows me to block Flash by default and only opt-in for legitimately useful sites. It's a powerful win for security and usability (ever watch someone try to close an annoying Flash ad?).; March 30, 2010 12:01 PM
space said...: but will Flash respect z-index?!; March 30, 2010 12:04 PM
lyesmith said...: How will you handle Adobe (especially Acrobat) security issues?

Will you work with Adobe to improve Flash. (For example option to pause Flash in inactive windows/tabs) or you just screw the user with a memory/cpu hog.

How can I make sure that not the latest Flash Player but the version I choose ends up on my computer? (ie debugger version) Can you make it optional or make it possible to toggle?

Will be Silverlight included also?; March 30, 2010 12:09 PM
jasonvaritekfan said...: I'm going to stay on the beta Chrome channel, but will keep an eye on developments. I like the idea of not having to install Flash after installing Chrome.; March 30, 2010 12:11 PM
Alex 'BuckyBit' Covic said...: I am curious, beyond trolling: how does one work with Adobe.com AND Mozilla.org? - thats like matter & anti-matter, no matter where you stand on technology, patents, etc...; March 30, 2010 12:17 PM
Brian Cardarella said...: Why is Google moving backwards on the pushing of standards? We should be moving forward towards HTML5, not backwards towards Adobe!; March 30, 2010 12:28 PM
michelet said...: I think this is a great idea, and am even more excited about the collaboration on a better plug-in api for developers to use. We use Flash a lot and this should solve compatibility issues for us in the future.; March 30, 2010 12:30 PM
gallifreyan said...: Will this mean that Chrome will have the native ability to remove Flash cookies as well?; March 30, 2010 12:43 PM
RyuWorks said...: Another clear example of how Google is going down; March 30, 2010 12:46 PM
Eduardo said...: Flash and silver light are the only plug-ins that will deliver us from falling into the hands of apple and their app stores. With Flash you can develop high end applications that can compete against native code apps. there is a reason why Apple doesn't want the Flash Player to run on the iPhone and iPad forcing developers to buy sdk licences. Although HTML5 is promising, it is far from delivering the experience a flash app can provide. The way I see it this move expands my choices as a developer rather than limiting them as some comments in this post mention. Definitely a step forward in the use of a tool which use is almost a standard.; March 30, 2010 12:47 PM
Brian said...: Does this improved support extend cover updates for Adobe Flash Player via Chromes' update services?; March 30, 2010 12:47 PM
Hashimtech said...: Google is going for Flash while Apple is on the HTML5 side. You cant expect Google to be on Apples side and try to kill flash dont you?

I agree with Google, bring Flash on Chrome as Flash is the real meat of the Internet experience, lest we all be watching GIF animations right now.; March 30, 2010 12:59 PM
middayc said...: big kudos for not going with the popsy thinking and staying realistic and pragmatic.; March 30, 2010 1:10 PM
Tariq said...: I find the comments quite interested - everyone has such an extreme position on things. The opinion of an extremist is of low value due to their lack of objectivity.

What Google is saying is:

1) Plug-ins are a reality.
2) There is no formal Plug-In API spec.
3) Current plug-in framework is antiquated and is in need of revisiting.
4) Flash is the most heavily installed Plug-In to date.
5) Adobe is interested in working with Google, Mozilla, and anyone else to improve the Flash plug-in experience.

So:
- This has nothing to do with HTML5.
- Chrome's HTML5 implementation is unrelated to efforts on this plug-in API initiative. It's probably different teams.
- It's not like you're trading one for the other.
- Whether you like it or not... tens of thousands of websites have invested in Flash. If a browser one day stops supporting it, and users can't use their favorite website, they'll just switch to a browser that can.
- Companies that utilize Flash will also need time to switch away from their Flash investments. Flash/Flex are also used on the intranet side of things for business applications.

- In total, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in software development projects, NO ONE is going to walk away from that. Or want to re-invent what took years to develop.; March 30, 2010 1:25 PM
bebensiganteng said...: for all you flash haters and HTML5/Javascript elitist, KISS MY SHINY FLASHY CHROME COATED BEHIND!!; March 30, 2010 1:27 PM
Gaurang said...: This is most definitely an attack of Apple. Since Apple supports HTML5 over Flash, Google wants to support Flash even more.

Google, until now, was "appearing" to promote HTML5 -- being the co-author of it along with Apple -- and with HTML5, the standard browser would be able to a lot of what Flash is used for -- and thus be more reliably and eventually more efficient.

Now in my opinion, Google "may" be being "evil" and just trying to go against Apple, in whatever way they can. This is not the Google, I knew it to be. I could be wrong though -- this is my personal opinion, take it with a grain of salt.; March 30, 2010 1:38 PM
jamesjohnston said...: Why does everything have to turn into a HTML5 v Flash spite match? This debate has been had, stop putting everything you've ever hated about the web into the Flash basket and think for a change. Why would you want to deliberately phase out a technology prematurely, there is a lot of Flash on the web it makes sense to include it in the builds. If Flash is going to die it will be because people want it to, supply and demand is pretty good at sorting this stuff out.; March 30, 2010 1:43 PM
fontvirus said...: this is great news! flash is here to stay! take that HTML5! ;D; March 30, 2010 1:59 PM
Dmitriy Likhten said...: Ok, lets avoid all the Trolling in the comments.

Regarding "moving to html5 and open standards" let us assume that there will be a browser plugin that does something HTML5 does not do. Wait hold up gone too far. Let us assume there is a framework on top of windows that allows us to do something that was previously not possible in core windows. Why should we not make MS innovate windows vs making that framework integrate well? because sometimes we want innovation.

So about flash. Let us assume that flash is good. However let us also assume that the folks at google know more about security than the folks at adobe. Lets even assume the folks at google know more about security than ANYONE writing a plugin for google chrome. So lets leverage that. Indicate how Google Chrome will sandbox your plugin, and let the plugin have it's own flaws that can't get out of google chrome's sandbox. Not to say Flash should not fix it's damn bugs, but if there is a flash bug lets reduce the risk to a fraction of what it is now by good design.; March 30, 2010 1:59 PM
naturalethic said...: Competing standards is healthy.; March 30, 2010 2:01 PM
graphicaliber said...: Come on people, see through the flotsam of HTML5 vs Flash comments. Where else in the world would you only want one option? Should everyone only drive the one type of vehicle because it's open sourced? lol Quit applying innane reasons why you think Flash should be dead. Flash has been doing what HTML5 promises to do for almost a decade. And it continues to innovate by allowing developers to build cross-platform applications, mobile-apps, and can do more than HTML5. Go away already. The web deserves options, and evolving web-plugin integration is a brilliant move by Google, and Mozilla. Users want more performance plugins, so they give it to them, nice move!; March 30, 2010 2:01 PM
Steve Davis said...: Seems like a really bad idea. Can anyone from Chrome comment on WHY this is being done?; March 30, 2010 2:01 PM
Eagle101 said...: Boo to Google. Thats why I dont buy their phones or use their services.; March 30, 2010 2:01 PM
Jon Brown said...: Sure I'd like to see flash use minimized, especially for video playback, but it still has many uses.

Chromium needs to take a look at what the most popular add-on extensions for Firefox actually are. While FlashBlock isn't in the top 5, AdblockPlus is and NoScript is right behind... and FlashBlock is still very popular.

People are sick an tired of not having CONTROL of their web content. I HATE videos, audio, whatever that starts automatically on it's own and just keeps sucking up CPU cycles whether I want it to or not.. This is why I run FlashBlock, not because I'm trying block ads. Flash is GROSSLY guilty of sucking up CPU cycles (and hence watts out of my battery) when I'm not even viewing the page.

So, here are my two suggestions. #1 Start by incorporate "Click 2 Flash" into Flash as default and make auto-loading/auto-start an alternative option for masochists.
#2 By default automatically pause/stop ALL flash from running in a background tab or a minimized window with an option to override to leave running in background for masochists.; March 30, 2010 2:13 PM
Felipe said...: Adobe fan: Wohooo!!! =D
Google fan: Disapponting =S; March 30, 2010 2:31 PM
Maria said...: The internet would be a much duller experience if it relied only on open standard technology.
Flash is not only about video and advertising, it has defined and shaped the future potential of what the internet can achieve in terms of design and interactivity.
Well done for emracing this technology.; March 30, 2010 2:38 PM
nebes said...: Well, predictable since no one will be allowed to install native applications, isn't it?

May all the Flash crap re-flood the internet's tubes.

ChromeOS needs that everything be crammed into the browser. Knowing where to stop is something I don't expect from the ChromeOS team at Google because of things like these. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Still, I'm biased, for me the web is information, contact, exchange, not The Experience, for that I go to the movies.; March 30, 2010 2:57 PM
Benny said...: This is great news. I love Flash and I like what HTML5 will bring in the future. I see great uses for both no need for the one or the other to leave the web scene IMHO.

But Flash needs better browser integration and it seems this effort is going to bring that. I am a happy webdevver now ;-); March 30, 2010 2:59 PM
mark.cornelius said...: Yes, spite Apple for banning Google Voice on iPhone.; March 30, 2010 3:11 PM
gamepr0 said...: Great, you just saved me the trouble of wondering if I'll switch from safari to chrome.; March 30, 2010 3:15 PM
Rayson Ho said...: Thank goodness that there is a way to disable Flash!

My desktop *still* runs Win 2000 - I have FireFox 3.6 (with Flash disabled, and no, i don't want plugins to disable flash) as my main browser, and IE 6 just for youtube.

When I get a new computer with XP or better, I will install Chrome as my main browser. However, not able to turn off flash makes it a deal breaker. I hate Flash, I really do hate Flash!!!

Rayson; March 30, 2010 3:32 PM
Silver-angeL said...: Could you please make flash plug-in in Linux Chrome more stable and less demanding to the resource ?; March 30, 2010 3:43 PM
Adrian Wood said...: Certain people are talking about hating Flash for loading automatically when you go to a page that includes it, eating up cycles and memory, etc etc. Apart from it being more resource heavy (and generally speaking containing more content to match) compared to other types of web content, what exactly is the difference between this and, oh, everything else that gets put in webpages?

Some Flash is annoying, fine. So is some embedded javascript. So is some use of CSS. So are some embedded sounds, and videos, and various "widgets". So is some HTML. So is some text, for heavens sake. If there is a method of putting something up on a webpage then someone, somewhere, has found an annoying way of using it.

We're not talking Realplayer here. For all the annoying ways it is used, Flash does a lot of good for the web, and lot of the sites that the general public tends to use (with Youtube topping the list) use it widely. I don't see any problem with Google doing what Google always does, and making things a bit easier, and better, for the majority of web users.

If you really can't stand this, and there's no option to opt out in the end, then I daresay someone will quickly release a Chromium fork that doesn't both with the integrated Flash. I for one look forward to seeing integrated Flash hit the main release.; March 30, 2010 3:47 PM
gg said...: RAHHHHR! I HATES FLASHES! CRASHY NASTY MEAN FLASHES!

clacketyclackety

about:plugins

Plugins:
Flash [x]

click

Plugins:
Flash [ ]

RAAAAHR! I HAVE TURNEDED IT OFF BUT ITS IS STILL THERE! NOOOOOO~

clacketyclack

http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/

RAAAHR! I AMS STILL SAPORTING FLASHES SOMEHOWS!!!11!

clacketyclack

http://www.apple.com/safari/

NOW I AM COMPLETE HUMANS BEINGS AND MEMBER OF NICE SOCIETIES

I CAN GO OUTSIDES NOW; March 30, 2010 3:49 PM
Stellar Drift said...: As long as you make it PORTABLE - less installing crap in a user directory or system root and more the option to write it in the install directory so you can run it from usb sticks (or just want to have it portable on your harddrive); March 30, 2010 3:51 PM
Basharat Wani said...: Future of the web need to be standards-based on HTML, CSS and JavaScript and not on some proprietary plugins , Remember what Apple is doing .....

Google is doing a mistake

Basharat; March 30, 2010 3:53 PM
derrickito said...: i just ate a cheeseburger as big as my head. so goooood.; March 30, 2010 3:56 PM
Paul said...: This has got to be an April Fools joke?; March 30, 2010 3:59 PM
Zimbabalim said...: Excellent news for someone coming from a Flash/Flex dev perspective. Does seem politicaly motivated, though politicaly a very interesting move on the part of Google.

Apple need to be challenged: they are approaching the apex of arrogance that precedes the demise of an empire, and should be pushed in my opinion. It's kind of amusing how the open-source fanatics are championing a company that is extremely closed and self serving. Be careful I'd say. Apple couldn't give a shiny teabag for standards, unless they are the standard.

I think improving the interface between the plugIn and the browser a modern step. Also, Adobe announced some time ago that FP10.1 will throttle FPS when not visible, which would appeal to the Chrome developers, if it was not actually suggested by them in the first place.

The web needs HTML5++: it's 2010. Let it do what it is supposed to do, i.e. build documents including modern datatypes. Don't screw around trying to reinvent Flash with canvas. I do HTML, JS, CSS, PHP, XSLT as well as Flash (OK, less often nowadays), but maybe the rabid antiFlash devs should try a little AS3 for a balanced view? Are your ethics really that strong?

Aside from politics, Google is a tech junkie that wants to be market leader with Chrome. They are definitely kitting it up for battle.; March 30, 2010 4:02 PM
jsettle said...: Disappointing Google. Very disappointing.

I'm just utterly disgusted. Integrate the cancer of the web into its leading browser crikey.

Excuse me while I purge Chrome from all of these machines. Hopefully someone will maintain a non-infected fork. Hopefully an "ice" series browser like the GNU folks do with Mozilla.; March 30, 2010 4:19 PM
7a said...: You better be trolling.; March 30, 2010 4:37 PM
tath.am said...: Disappointing. :(; March 30, 2010 5:09 PM
DCW said...: Dissapointing. Chrome is a great browser, but I *don't* want Flash installed on it. If you don't make Flash easy to remove, I'll have to switch to Safari. (Which is not great on Windows).; March 30, 2010 5:18 PM
Jason Wagner said...: Very, very disappointed. I consider Google to be one of the leading companies pushing HTML 5 and the open web forward. Everything we've heard from Google in the past year has been pro open standards, blah blah blah. Partnering with Adobe to include Flash with Chrome is EVIL. Sure, it might be pragmatic. Flash isn't going away tomorrow, but including the plugin directly is endorsing Flash as a viable platform for the future. This just seems so contradictory to the message we have been hearing from Google over the past year.

This has definitely impacted my opinion of Google and I think their true intentions are starting to show through.; March 30, 2010 5:27 PM
Ryan (GeekMaster) said...: A separate EULA screen will appear before downloading Flash, just deny it if you don't want Flash.; March 30, 2010 5:33 PM
Zimbabalim said...: Excellent news for someone coming from a Flash/Flex dev perspective. Does seem politicaly motivated, though politicaly a very interesting move on the part of Google.

Apple need to be challenged: they are approaching the apex of arrogance that precedes the demise of an empire, and should be pushed in my opinion. It's kind of amusing how the open-source fanatics are championing a company that is extremely closed and self serving. Be careful I'd say. Apple couldn't give a shiny teabag for standards, unless they are the standard.

I think improving the interface between the plugIn and the browser a modern step. Also, Adobe announced some time ago that FP10.1 will throttle FPS when not visible, which would appeal to the Chrome developers, if it was not actually suggested by them in the first place.

The web needs HTML5++: it's 2010. Let it do what it is supposed to do, i.e. build documents including modern datatypes. Don't screw around trying to reinvent Flash with canvas. I do HTML, JS, CSS, PHP, XSLT as well as Flash (OK, less often nowadays), but maybe the rabid antiFlash devs should try a little AS3 for a balanced view? Are your ethics really that strong?

Aside from politics, Google is a tech junkie that wants to be market leader with Chrome. They are definitely kitting it up for battle.; March 30, 2010 5:37 PM
Jim Cummins said...: Please please please don't include it in auto updates. I have modified my Flash to fix the annoying bug (as I see it) where viewing full screen videos on a second monitor and continuing to click on the first monitor is not possible as it causes the video to exit full screen mode. More on this problem here: http://my.opera.com/d.i.z./blog/2009/04/22/watch-fullscreen-flash-while-working-on-another-screen?cid=7548517#comment7548517; March 30, 2010 5:39 PM
kadajawi said...: This is awesome. I believe Flash performs so badly because it is run as a plugin. For example the downloaded version of a Prezi presentation (can you do that with HTML5?) works very well, whereas in a browser it's very slow. I think I might switch to Chrome when this feature comes to the regular Chrome version.

Anyway both HTML5 and Flash have their reason for existence.

Perhaps Google wants to strengthen Flash as to increase developer support for Flash? Since obviously Apple doesn't want people to use it...? (too bad all the developers are moving away from Flash now); March 30, 2010 5:51 PM
RichSad said...: I respect Google for realizing that the world is big enough for both Flash and HTML 5. It is not an either/or choice. Sure the future should be standards based, but if those standards don't support all the use cases that users require solutions to, then tools like Flash/Flex/Air help bridge the gap.; March 30, 2010 5:59 PM
Moritz said...: BOO!
Flash must die!
I don't know what possibly leads to such a horrible move.
... and I thought google would be less brain-dead than most other internet companies.; March 30, 2010 6:07 PM
Ryan said...: @RichSad, Please stop being so damn reasonable.; March 30, 2010 6:12 PM
Ryan said...: " (too bad all the developers are moving away from Flash now)"

This doesn't actually change anything. Building websites in all flash is still obviously poor-form as always. For those times where a standards based solution won't work for whatever reason (google finance chart) Flash is all we have to work with. This effects only end users with hopefully a less buggy browsing experience.

Developers are still using flash less and less for the things it's not good at.; March 30, 2010 6:15 PM
questforquests said...: working to create a plugin standard is a good idea!
But having flash integrated within Chrome by default is a really disappointing strategic move.
Obviously, trying to incorporate flash with your Chrome OS in order to kick some apples is a strategic move that I can understand.
The ennemy of my ennemy is my friend huh:
eat some apple.
then kick out some adobe...

anyhow,
I am not really sure that having flash in your os will be the killer deal that will encourage the average consumer to choose your product.
A lot of users don't even know what is flash and just don't care... ipad does not allow flash but seems to go well without.

Despite the fact that Flash is missing some seo friendly feature (say the meta information about the contents that holds html tags?), that it is freaking slow and buggy (crash,crash,crash), are you really sure that it is an improvement for your potential users to give them automatic access to badly written third party plugins?
having it not installed by default and offer automatic download if necessary seems a way much better idea.; March 30, 2010 6:22 PM
Mundo Exchange said...: It's an interesting match to be sure - I'm pretty sure the European courts might rule it is illegal (after Silverlight exists) only after it's hugely successful of course.

Let's see what happens at the stroke of midnight from Google this April 1st :); March 30, 2010 6:57 PM
Josh (the oak) said...: This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions

This may seem like a good idea if Flash is here to stay, but I've work on sites where problems with the latest version of the plugin broke compatibility with the site or with flex.

No-choice updates are just as likely to solve problems as create them. It's good for Adobe, but isn't strictly speaking good or bad for site admins or users.; March 30, 2010 7:13 PM
Steve said...: This is a big mistake - flash should have been left to die.

Thanks a lot Google, this is only slightly better than endorsing ie6.; March 30, 2010 7:39 PM
Zak said...: Shocking decision. Short-term financial gain wins over long-term user experience, accessibility and openness.; March 30, 2010 7:40 PM
Justin_P said...: Sounds like a great idea.; March 30, 2010 7:53 PM
Garick said...: Is this new plugin API going to solve the UI security problems of plugins like flash? If so, thank god. However, I doubt Adobe would really be interested in that API.

Part of the problem is flash has too much access to the mouse, webcam, keyboard etc ... yes/no is not enough of a choice ... Likewise flashes own internal cross realm security is aweful. Data written by plugins should be forced into the realm model _by the browser_ not at the discretion of the plugin writer or site author.

Sandboxing is not what I am worried about. Even sandboxed flash in a security nightmare with the current plugin APIs.; March 30, 2010 7:54 PM
joe said...: don't like flash; i would not choose chrome if adobe flash is an integral part of chrome.

opensource implementation of flash would be different story, but for a better future, i think, flash should be replaced with better technology.

google, sorry, but i am not getting chrome.; March 30, 2010 8:07 PM
millerj15 said...: Really this is a win for everyone.

Flash is legacy for myself personally, I look forward to canvas, webgl+ANGLE Project, video/audio tag, O3D and NACL for hardware accelerated web applications. Flash may be proprietary but a majority of end (internet) users just want content to work one way or another. Flash doesn't work too well on Linux or with FOSS ideas but it's the content creators decision to use what they want which had to be flash for years (or quicktime?).

Hopefully Chrome OS and other great browsers will start a wave of local web applications that are not flash, but at the end of the day its the people who use Chrome OS that need flash to navigate the current web at its state right now. In a few years the landscape will be changing to (I believe) open standards and feature rich native web api's but right now Google is doing a service to its users by making their web work as best as possible while letting developers & content providers choose their mediums for better or worse.; March 30, 2010 8:14 PM
Koden said...: Flash is deprecated. Let it die.
HTML+CSS+JS is the future.
Chrome is/was the superior browser experience.

Why tie a fat dead cow to a sports car?; March 30, 2010 8:19 PM
-unTamed- said...: Incredibly disappointing. What happened to all the talk about open web needing no proprietary plugins to work with ideology?

Bad choice google, bad choice, you compromise once, you compromise for everything and the future web we all want will be a crappy combination of plugins and open standards.; March 30, 2010 8:26 PM
Wisu said...: wonder if it will be good on a 64 Bit linux...

My fingers are itching for a Ubuntu Box stuffed with 8Gb RAM...; March 30, 2010 8:50 PM
JorSol said...: Sorry Google, but this is a big NO... things like this and like supporting h264 instead of Ogg Theora is just a really bad move.; March 30, 2010 9:13 PM
Almond said...: If improvement means a thing to Adobe, can they atleast improve transparent wmode in Netscape-compatible based.
First of all its super broken in Linux, slow in Mac and Windows(any browser except IE).
Second you can't type other language besides Latin based characters in Netscape-compatible.
And other minor stuff like the wheel scroll is broken as well.; March 30, 2010 9:32 PM
Clint Bounds said...: Based on most of these comments, you'd think they just passed the health care bill or something. Lighten up people!; March 30, 2010 9:36 PM
hynkle said...: This is terrible news. Flash isn't bad solely because of its propensity to crash its host application; Flash is bad because it's antithetical to the idea of open web standards. Whether it's intended this way or not, including Flash with Chrome passes a value judgment that continued reliance on Flash is okay. To think that do-no-evil Google has lost the moral high ground to control-your-life Apple is a sobering thought.; March 30, 2010 9:42 PM
Wes said...: One question: Will the user get any say in the version installed? I'd like to be running the 10.1b3 build, if possible.; March 30, 2010 11:27 PM
Bertrand said...: Great move! Only one point to discuss.

I disagree on the integration of Flash directly into Chrome. Flash should be the very first plugin to use the new plugin API (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Plugins:PlatformIndependentNPAPI), but not be integrated, just bundled.

This would be a very good thing to launch the new plugin API if the Flash Player plugin is the first one to support it, as it's the most popular. So Google and Mozilla should focus only on making the new plugin API a reality on both Chrome and Firefox (and other browser, as apparently Webkit team is jumping in the train too), and Adobe should focus on making Flash Player plugin using this new API.

After, you can bundle the Flash plugin in Chrome and check for updates for it on the update process, much like Firefox 3.6 already do it. No need to integrate it entirely, it can stay a plugin like any other.; March 30, 2010 11:29 PM
Smorg said...: "Google correctly recognizes the Flash plug-in as one of the main engines that drive innovation on the Web."

Innovation and ubiquity aren't the same thing. Flash is one of the main things holding back innovation. We have no choice but to support it because it is ubiquitous, and it is ubiquitous because it is ubiquitous. We can't innovate because everyone uses flash, because everyone supports flash, because everyone uses flash... A viscous circle really. The only thing worse is IE.; March 31, 2010 12:01 AM
Rory said...: I personally think that Google should have included Gnash in Chrome. It would have increased the market share of Gnash, to the point that Adobe would no longer have an effective monopoly on the flash player.

It would have forced content providers, to consider cross-flash-implementation compatibility, in the same way as Firefox forced content providers to consider cross-browser compatibility.; March 31, 2010 12:20 AM
Vitriolix said...: Very nice. I'm happy they are leaving the choice up the their users, not issuing decree's from on high about what technology site owners should use.; March 31, 2010 12:37 AM
Purity Control said...: Well done Google
Html5 is a long way off yet. This is a pragmatic approach to the problems we face today.; March 31, 2010 12:42 AM
Rui said...: Hi,

What people are missing to realize is that this is the beginning of an effort to bring better security to the Web as it is today and as it will be in the next few years.

Like it or not (I personally do like it) Flash is all over the web. Anyone wanting to build software or devices that browse the web must support Flash to enable the average user to be able to experience it as it was meant by web designers and developers. Google and other technology providers realized this and are working together to make that experience safer for everyone.

Face it people! Web plugins are not going to go away! Working in close partnership with all stakeholders is the best way to make them behave better and more consistently across platforms. It's a question of partnership and collaboration to find the better solutions and not standing in your own ground shouting like a madman about the end of the world! Only Apple fails to see this, but that's no surprise, they've been sitting in the corner and manipulating reality for a long as I can remember.

Congrats to Adobe, Google and the Mozilla Foundation for having the guts to work together and finally jump start real innovation on browser standards! The lack of those has been the real bane on web technologies for decades!...; March 31, 2010 1:29 AM
Alistair Colling said...: I agree completely...

'Well done Google
Html5 is a long way off yet. This is a pragmatic approach to the problems we face today.'

I think it's silly that people become frustrated with Flash for causing their computer to run slow or browser to crash. If HTML5 does become the web standard then I'm sure lots of badly coded banners and widgets will have the same effect.

We should use the tools that are best for the job, at the moment Flash is still really useful and can do some incredible things HTML5 can't.

This move by Google makes sense for everyone.
Alistair; March 31, 2010 1:35 AM
Peter Fischer said...: Nooooooooo!
Please don't do it!
My computer will feel like 10 years older and I'll experience web0.2.

What should be delivered with Chrome is a flashblock utility instead!

Flash must die!; March 31, 2010 2:04 AM
Ivan said...: When will this stereotypes against flash end???

1. Flash is NOT proprietary. Both flash tech and flash player are open standard. The only thing proprietary about it is the video codec (h.264 afair), and that is not owned by Adobe. The only problem why Linux and MacOS versions aren't performing as good as Windows version - people are condemning flash player on this systems instead of contributing and advancing it.

2. Flash isn't old. After Adobe acquired Macromedia they redid flash from scratch, one of the prominent additions being ActionScript 3.0 (based on ECMAScript standard, the same as JavaScript, a very powerful and mature language). Plus in 3 recent years flash has added such great stuff as Flex and AIR.

3. Flash isn't slow - it keeps adding features for speed (GPU acceleration is a great recent example, do you know of any other tech capable of playing HD video in a browser with no lag? Or maybe any 3D browser games built on JavaScript or HTML 5)?

4. Security - I am no expert, but from what I know - Flash is by far not the most insecure tech among the ones used on the web today.

Bottom line - I'm all for new standards like HTML5, but also for free choice between various techs. For now flash is used on most pc`s, most handheld devices and millions of sites on the net. Increasing its integration with the browser and promoting it from just a plug-in to a fully integrated technology is the right thing to do, right thing for the end user that is. After all - if You care enough about not using it - You can always stick to older browsers that don’t integrate it and avoid any sites with flash.; March 31, 2010 2:11 AM
Perfect Day said...: I see more and more Flash advertisements that are delivered by the Google Ad machine. I'm probably being cynical but this is nothing more than a ploy to ensure that Adobe Flash continues to deliver money into the Google coffers. And it also ensures that Adobe development software continues to be sold. This *feels* evil.; March 31, 2010 2:14 AM
ScoutKnifez said...: it would be great to add to your post that how we can disable the flash player in chrome.
1, because of security
2, because I don't want to watch ads; March 31, 2010 2:24 AM
mehiel said...: This is not about forcing HTML5 to replace Flash. Personally speaking I hate Flash and I've never written a line on it. But it is not a browser's/OS decision if Flash is not viable any more. They should do their best to support it efficiently and developers/users will decide if it is a useless technology (it is, but..)

The truth is that Flash is everywhere now and it is an option for any developer to use it and it will be even if HTML5 fill the gaps for "richer" clients.

So I want my navigation on these sites/apps to be faster and of course more secure and stable than it currently is.

Sandboxing Flash is like heaven to earth currently.

Keep up the goodle job!; March 31, 2010 2:28 AM
C said...: If google give us a choice to choose to incorporate the plug-in or not that will be perfect.; March 31, 2010 3:20 AM
KingTingTong said...: It's always about who has the best patents, the best Indian support crew and who knows where to get the best Harvey Wallbanger.
It's not like Google and Adobe had an affair, their officially engaging; which means that we're not alone. Would Michael Jackson not like that?; March 31, 2010 3:42 AM
zik said...: when HTML 5 will be popular
it will be use for ads
and they will take a lot of CPU
and since it HTML you couldn't
disable it

it don't matter which way
a application that take a lot
off CPU or annoying is in your
browser

think of this thing
when one flash crash today in
chrome all the flash crash
after that only the one that
crash will crash

you could see which page take
a lot of CPU.

if you gust don't love that
it will download to your computer
i am sure there is a option
to not downloading it.; March 31, 2010 3:45 AM
pavel said...: This new religion called HTML5izm/Appleizm getting more and more ridiculous. Sorry you fanatics, but your comments getting more and more childish and idiotic each month. I can't believe that we're in 2010. What next? You'll get voodoo puppet with flash name on it? GROW UP! Goole is partner of www.openscreenproject.com(just check your hated flash player on nexus one mobile phone...it performs better than on macbook pro!...yes and flash is slow crap...riiight) .I like the fact that Adobe has been pushed to innovate this plug-in because it was rubbish(part of that because of crap "devs" in the past) but it's on good path now(don't worry fanatics I won't go into technical explanation of advantages by using flash because you wouldn't listen anyway). Every technology has its pros and cons. Just take that. I'm developer. I use Flash,.NET,PHP,Javascript,HTML,CSS whatever is most appropriate for given project. But working with HTML in last couple of months made me feel crap by the fact that I'm in the same group as you idiots...so sad; March 31, 2010 3:59 AM
Michael said...: I'm lovin' it..........; March 31, 2010 4:02 AM
Simon said...: please do not support this crappy piece of software and invest in HTML5!; March 31, 2010 4:04 AM
shevegen said...: Oh man ... I was glad that Firefox gets some competition but I DO NOT WANT TO GET VIRAL FLASH.

Flash is already so damn widespread, I am getting tired of it spreading more and more.; March 31, 2010 4:22 AM
folken said...: I had to check the date on this one... i hope that this is an early April fools joke.

Adobe Flash has a lot of usability/accessibility issues. It requires too much power and does not scale to the device its playing on. This is really problematic, especially with all things Internet going mobile.

Its also very powerhungry and the flash animation in the back causes your cpu to not go into sleepstates.

The "alternative" OS support of adobe flash is flaky at best. Their security track record lousy.

Despite the format being "open" no one has been able to implement the full spectrum of the current proprietary product.

Supporting this lousy technology by including it already per default with the browser, the flash adoption/dependency only spreads further.

I would expect Google to do better.

This is really a bad and shortsighted call. Please reconsider.; March 31, 2010 4:37 AM
itpayz said...: maiking it easier for the end user is a usability win. forget this nonsense about a propriety plugin. it's called reality and the reality is many many many sites use flash and its not going away.; March 31, 2010 5:16 AM
Andrew said...: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...

Add Silverlight for Windows/MACOSX
and Moonlight for Linux (or if you can do a deal like Intel with their Linux netbook and get Silverlight for Chrome from Microsoft..

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE; March 31, 2010 5:18 AM
Dominik Bay said...: I expected Chrome to be Standards-based pushing new technologies like HTML5 without adding Legacy-Support for proprietary Web-"Standards" pushed by a single company. This news disappoints me.; March 31, 2010 5:26 AM
rohan4 said...: People seem obsessed with the fact that HTML 5 will be able to do what Flash has been doing for the last X years when it will be released.
No one seems to pay much attention to what Flash WILL be able to do when HTML 5 is finally released and has cross patform capability .... and that could be many, many years away; March 31, 2010 5:44 AM
Sriram said...: Nice thought. All the best.; March 31, 2010 6:08 AM
circlecube said...: BEAUTIFUL!

Flash is a tool to help further the web. It is optional, but if people want to use the advanced functionality (and I'm sorry to say- annoying ads and derelict sites) the I'm glad browser vendors are thinking progressively to develop an API to make it a standard!

That's an example of a company out to solve problems, rather than just make a dollar. Although, I'm sure the plan is to solve problems that enable them to make many dollars...; March 31, 2010 6:12 AM
lmjabreu said...: Could be worse, besides the sandboxing I see no advantage of this partnership besides political move against Apple.; March 31, 2010 6:18 AM
Lance Burrows said...: I can kind of understand why you would add a plugin for Flash but isn't HTML 5 flash's replacement?
Come on Flash is old you have started bata testing on youtube for HTML 5 so why would you start making deals with Adobe when HTML 5 is it's replacement?
Im sorry but I have to boo you on that, thought I can't wait for the chromium OS I hope from you making this OS it should also help out Ubuntu and well all of linux as it is made off the linux platform anyway go google your great, wait except the fact you canceled my youtube account that had no videos on it in the first place!
whats up with that?
Anyway keep up the good work but don't close anymore of my accounts.; March 31, 2010 6:33 AM
FEVRIER said...: Google foster flash... -_-

Where is the companie for open standards?; March 31, 2010 6:33 AM
infiniteloop said...: This is awesome! My only concern is for the rare occasion where the latest flash player has a new security issue, would the browser automatically fall back to the last safe version?

Flash haters, get a life.; March 31, 2010 6:35 AM
Sander said...: All I can hope is that the new strategy is more stable than what we have now. I have to kill Chrome processes almost daily because they start spinning cores at 100%. Once I do that it's showing killed flash boxes everywhere in Chrome. Apparently Chrome sticks Flash in a separate process. This does spinning doesn't happen in Firefox so there must be something specific about how Chrome hooks into Flash.

As an aside I really enjoy the Flashblock plugin for Firefox. With it I only run flash junk I choose to run.; March 31, 2010 7:22 AM
mathum said...: Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't bundle software that I don't want with Chrome, just to slightly annoy Apple for a few days. Who cares? PLEASE.; March 31, 2010 7:35 AM
luxy68 said...: Excellent news !!
Thank you Google, Flash is essential :); March 31, 2010 8:38 AM
Rick Smith said...: How will this work with 64-bit Linux? The best luck I've had is by using Adobe's alpha release:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html

The article mentioned working with Adobe so I'm thinking this is what will be used. Can you put alpha code into a beta project and still call it beta?; March 31, 2010 8:41 AM
wfox said...: The HTML5 circlejerk reminds me of the OGG Vorbis circlejerk. I remember how they were everywere saying "OGG Vorbis is the future, it will be used by everyone and benchmarks show us it is a superior over MP3".

We know what happened then.; March 31, 2010 9:11 AM
Callum said...: The fact of the matter is Flash is here to stay for a while, but I believe that HTML5 will overtake it in regards to video playback. However Flash is NOT all about video playback! It's also an excellent tool for the creation and playback of vector-quality games and animations. In this regard Flash Player won't be dying for a number of years.; March 31, 2010 9:18 AM
J. Phillip Camp said...: Standards become standards some how. Think HDDVD vs BluRay or even Betamax vs VHS.. I don't hear people complaining about being forced to use a BluRay player. It's the standard. It wasn't always that way. Everyone has agreed on one format; it saves both producers and consumers billions of dollars every year by allowing people to only buy one payer, one DVD, and making sure that it will work correctly given one implementation.

In our case The browser's JavaScript engine has become the standard for scripting. And that engine is a "player." The problem is that the "player" is proprietary on every browser. Of course JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are standards but the implementation of displaying that data; another way to say "player" is done differently. How can people say Flash is a proprietary player and not think about their browser as the exact same thing? Flash is the proprietary player for ActionScript as IE's JS engine, FF's JS engine, Chrome's JS engine, Safari's JS engine, etc are all individual proprietary engines for playing JavaScript. They are all implemented differently which creates problems.

JavaScript's inability to provide a concrete programming model has fostered the proliferation of JS Frameworks like Dojo, jQuery, etc. to fill the gaps of a stronger programming model. We wouldn't need things like this if JS was as good as.. let's say ActionScript. Polymorphism, run-time debugging, strong typing, etc.

So when you say "proprietary player" think about how much control open source has over the JavaScript "player" and why developers have to put so much effort into making JavaScript, HTML, and CSS look and function correctly across different "open players" If everyone subscribed to one player (BluRay/Flash/JavaScript) it would save the industry tons of money both in development and in effort to produce the browsers.

My personal opinion; be it JS or AS or some other, is that as long as we have strong typing, run-time debugging, polymorphism, and other enterprise development constructs I don't care what the language is, as long as the developers write it once and it works everywhere, and it doesn't matter which browser the user is using I'm fully behind it.; March 31, 2010 9:21 AM
unhammer said...: WOOH Flash is open source at last??; March 31, 2010 10:18 AM
mikey said...: As a Deseloper I welcome this news!; March 31, 2010 12:24 PM
karlzt said...: flash is stupid, STUPID!; March 31, 2010 1:48 PM
Torsten Werner said...: what the f*ck; March 31, 2010 2:06 PM
Mea Poulpa said...: What about flash debugger ?; March 31, 2010 3:40 PM
flying sheep said...: i bet they made april fools of us all!; March 31, 2010 3:45 PM
angelomoncristi said...: Wonderful work as always.
I love how Chromium do it work at always they don't ever disappoint me not ever once...

I give you some tips: give only attention to people with photo on this blog they are the real believers and loyal to chrome and they want and know that this will give a strong improvement to the Google Browser and that other browser will have to follow you if thy know that this is good for them too and that this improvement is extremely needed. Good to see that you are the first to make this big steps woo have founded this smart idea so fast and that Google to be the first to do this integration step is wonderful.
I see to much negative post don't give them attention to much they don't which is the best tings for them and probably the come from competitors :) and as always 99% I'm right
Plus to post a negative comment from competition is easy and probably the have a variety ID to chose from but I for one want to let you know my support.
Make this improvement optional enable/disable and I see no problem for others that don't like integration and 100% all will be more than OK.
I for one give you a +A to the one that wanted and heaved this idea good job or if this come from the people is good that some one like chrome is listening to them.
Love Flash they entertain, easy fast and powerful.
And I love the idea with OpenID and the possibility to use other account from other sites so you don't have to lose the time to make over 1000 accounts and memorize all them. I for one have a Google account and I'm happy that found this blog god work. I'm extremely happy.
And working with adobe is wonderful because they need this support from you more than ever making it ever more entertaining.; March 31, 2010 7:41 PM
Cris Boozer said...: isn't a religion folks, no flash no drm no proprietary content.no hulu.no silverlight no netflix...get the picture?html 5 is better.so what it still wont dominate ever....content owners don't want it and worse ogg theora sucks!the files are huge.; April 1, 2010 2:01 AM
Oliver said...: Wtf??? Wasn't there not enough security risks in Chrome or why do users need this crap? And where can I turn it off?; April 1, 2010 4:21 AM
DaVince said...: Since you are now integrating a version of Flash that uses the new plugin infrastructure, here's to hoping it will make Flash a whole heck of a lot more efficient and fast on Linux.; April 1, 2010 4:49 AM
divilex said...: There will be an option to not install, and disable if you decide to install the integrated, sandboxed, auto-update and modified-for-chrome flash. There will also be an option to disable any installed plugin. These features are already there in the latest chromium builds.

If you already have an older version of flash installed, you can disable the one which comes with chrome and use the one you prefer for whatever reason.; April 1, 2010 4:50 AM
fALk said...: WTF! Why Google WHY? I thought you stand for an open web that pushes standards - I was more expecting a version of Chrome that does not allow any plugins whatsoever. This so royally totally sucks - feels like a stab in the back of all webdevelopers who push for open standards over the years.

Why are you doing adobes dirty work? Helping them legitimize the havoc they have wrecked on the net over the last years.

Google new motto: Don´t be evil but enable evil companies to be more evil.; April 1, 2010 8:16 AM
dpotter said...: Just when we thought that Google was the champion of HTML5 they turn around and partner with Adobe on Flash to ensure that the web remains a mess of proprietary brain damage.

+1; April 1, 2010 11:26 AM
Ed Murphy said...: "Wtf??? Wasn't there not enough security risks in Chrome or why do users need this crap?"

Why do folks need this?
Wow, have you ever played music or video on the web? Have you ever had to do high-performance dynamic graphics or animation? I've really tried hard to justify using the Canvas tag in my projects, but it just doesn't work well enough across browsers. Sorry, my users don't just want flash, they NEED flash.; April 1, 2010 1:11 PM
mort blort said...: Thumbs down. Flash is the last major proprietary hunk o' junk between users and information. If Adobe would open source it, all of it, Flash might provide a better path than SVG. But as it is, it's a complete 180 from what I expect from Google.; April 1, 2010 1:24 PM
lkcl said...: ok. the all-important question: where are you going to get a version of Flash from, for ARM CPUs? chrome on x86, great, lovely - but... not interesting. machines (MIDs, Netbooks, Laptops) over the next few months are coming out with ARM processors, that are 30% to 40% less money than equivalent x86 systems.

where is the ARM version of flash, bundled with chrome?; April 1, 2010 3:46 PM
Cardin Lee said...: When Javascript comes up to steal your privacy,

spam blinking advertisements

crash your browser

crash your OS by crashing your OpenGL GPU

ooooh, how you will moan for Javasript NoScript Mozilla plugin.

I'm gonna make one now.; April 1, 2010 5:36 PM
Bryan H. said...: What's with all the Flash hate? First of all, what Google is doing is bigger than Flash. What they're doing is making a sandbox and a set of APIs that plugins can use so that they can better integrate with Chrome. Flash is simply the first plugin that they're trying it with. So you hate Flash, great. But what if a new plugin comes out tomorrow that takes the world by storm? What Google is setting up now will still benefit any other plugins, both present and future.

As far as the security problems, why throw something away when millions of people already have the technology on their computer? Like other users have said, this would place Flash into a sandbox that would add extra protection around it. There is also the added update functionality. But then imagine if Flash were to use the Native Client features so that it could have amazing performance on a browser.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind with all of this is that it takes vision. Vision to image what does not exist yet but could. I don't think Google and Adobe are just thinking about integrating the current version of Flash and call it a done deal. If they have vision, and I think they do, they will take this to a whole new level that we haven't seen, or most likely even imaged yet. Everyone is yelling about bugs and security whole, but nobody is saying that Flash isn't capable (or at least doesn't have potential) to awesome things (especially if they take advantage of Native Client). So lets support Google for what they do best, doing things nobody else does in ways nobody else does them. I mean come on, it's Google! And if you use Google's services like Gmail and Docs (and I'm guessing you do) then you trust them already. So lets not burn down the bridge before it's built. If you think Google needs to provide better information to our community then that's fine. I'd like questions answered too. But I'm personally excited to see where this can go. Go Google!; April 1, 2010 10:26 PM
Telugu Movie News said...: I am not able to view your RSS feed URL.Can you please help me?; April 2, 2010 4:46 AM
Craij said...: So many old fogies. I don't think you're really reading the article o thinking about the future of the web; rather, just b!tching about flash. Have fun in Steve Job's world with all the other greedy cranks. Where people are only happy when they're complaining.

Further, if flash is crashing your browser, its probably Safari on a Mac, am I right?

And in regard to security issues, I challenge you to find a better browser than Chrome right now! Even with Flash baked in!!!

Thanks Google! Eat one Apple!; April 2, 2010 8:15 AM
Lance Burrows said...: Wow great comment craij, Since I tried chrome i haven't gone back since before I had safari because i couldn't stand internet explorer but chrome is great, as for flash crashing my browser that has never happened anyway who cares if they implement flash it will take quite some time for HTML5 to be as good as flash though I would like to see HTML5 take over now as I believe the web should rely on HTML/CSS and Java not flash, flash is really gunky and is just the awfullest form of code in my opinion and adobe doesn't help that with there bad flash software, it drives me insane frame by frame god i hate it.
Oh and craij your a mega Microsoft fan huh :P me to mate microsoft rules though macintosh is getting heaps better I quite like the ipods though who needs an Ipad these days microsoft will beat that with the courier tablet and also there is linux witch is getting better and better though I doubt it will be as good as microsofts OS any time soon.
"ADOBE FLASH SUCKS"
Though photoshop is great keep up the good work with that.
Well that was a really long comment join me for more on my website/blog at http://www.lanceburrows.com; April 2, 2010 8:41 AM
Craij said...: Lance, I'm a flash (application) programmer on a MacBook Pro (intel chip). Flash has always performed great. Further, AS3 looks a lot like Java these days. Completely object-oriented, frame by frame actions are like most of the comments to this post ... old school.

I do have a couple of MS machines. They're great too. Long and short of it: Safari and iTunes are the worst apps on my Mac (top 2 at Apple too) and, like iTunes and Safari, bad flash is due to bad programming. Complain to the site support staff about performance (or the company serving up the flash) if you have an issue... maybe it will urge them to fix their work or get better developers.; April 2, 2010 2:44 PM
Lance Burrows said...: Craij can I see some of your work and what do you develop flash for?
I took a class of flash and It was BAD maybe you could show me the proper enjoyable way to develop flash!; April 2, 2010 7:09 PM
Jérémie said...: Great idea !! Will make things a lot easier, why not integrate java as well to have an all in one out of the box usable web browser.

Open standards ? Come on, who cares ! I want an OS that just works, just like my web browser and if this web browser named Chrome is faster, more secure and easier to use than Fck open standards.

You guys really think open standards will face or replace flash ? Just works we non geek users don't need more ;-); April 3, 2010 6:32 AM
Ragingblizzard said...: Great news, this is next big step for the flash future.
Great, great……; April 4, 2010 4:43 AM
Blessed Geek said...: When we are obsoleting a product or project, the people involved in the obsoleting product are often "consulted".

Such "consultation" is a masquerade to tell us that the product that we have tended for so many years is obsolete.

To avoid backlash due to emotional attachment to the project, the sessions are called "consultation" and "feedback". The "consultation" is for us to say things helpful for our emotional therapy but rarely helpful to the transition. The feedback is to help formulate strategy to detach, with the least resistance, personnel from the project to work with a new area for which we have yet accumulated any experience or passion.

Adobe is to be obsoleted by HTML5. They have to be "consulted" for "feedback" as a masquerade to ensure least resistance from them towards HTML5 and to persuade them to work on something else ... e.g. cloud-compatible online games, and see how Google and Microsoft could help them in their transition to creating games for Google and XBox.; April 4, 2010 2:11 PM
zik said...: what is wrong about making
flash bater?
look like you don't
want it to be bater
bater flash mean less
CPU from flash
it also mean a motivation
for HTML5 to be bater.

and security and bug's of flash?
give me one bug and 2 security
problems...

i don't understand why you
call HTML a standard.

sometime HTML don't work the same
on different browsers
and flash work the same on
every browser
jest because one company did
flash and AS(well 2) doesn't
mean it not a standard.; April 5, 2010 10:20 AM
ttol said...: How about a two year old issue that Adobe has yet to fix:

http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/; April 5, 2010 5:06 PM
Logan said...: Good on you Chrome.

Flash haters, get over it.

I can code some ridiculously sick stuff in 1/3 of the time it would take to do it with JQuery or JavaScript. And it runs a heck of a lot smoother as well.

I love it all - HTML5, CSS3, JQuery, Flash, Flex, bring it on baby!!!!; April 6, 2010 9:28 AM
Atique said...: I was facing a lot of crash with youtube or sites using adobe flash player on Google Chrome.

Hope this will improve the situation.; April 6, 2010 9:29 AM
Justin said...: Yeay !! This is brilliant news, using it already... This is why Chrome is the best !! :) Thank You Google !; April 8, 2010 5:30 AM
Outlaw said...: Can anybody tell me why this doesn't work for me?

I made a link with Cromium.exe --enable-internal-flash

but I don't get any message. How do I see if this works?

Or does it only work with Chrome and not with Chromium?; April 8, 2010 6:11 AM
perk said...: Flash 10.1.53.7 released (RC)! Let's see when the special Flash plugin for Chrome will be updated…; April 8, 2010 4:49 PM
Alricky said...: Good stuff Google :D; April 13, 2010 12:28 AM
KoFFiE said...: Also have the fullscreen issue someone mentioned here. I have multiple monitors and use this trick to keep flash in fullscreen while working in another app:
http://lifehacker.com/5419028/keep-flash-videos-in-full-screen-on-dual-monitors

This integration in Chrome kills this :( Still don't understand why it should be included anyway, I have flashblock installed because I find flash irritating most of the time....; April 14, 2010 11:46 AM
Jason Hanson said...: Adding integrated support for Flash content is a step in the right direction. It should be standard in every browser just like javaScript. Nice move Google.; April 15, 2010 9:11 AM
Scott said...: not hating Flash here, but question relying so much on a closed 3rd party plug-in.

Hey, how about this: Google buys out Adobe and makes Flash totally open source. Get to work on that Google.; April 16, 2010 3:41 AM
Ejferg said...: It's weird that people that champion opensource don't know that Adobe made Flex 3,4 SDK's opensource. I can create a flash site or application right now in notepad for free. I can also look at the source code all I want. I know that and I'm not even a flash/flex developer.; April 17, 2010 4:27 PM
Pedro R. said...: HTML5 is the future,
but we live in the present. And the present requires Flash.

Flash will live until HTML5 can catch up.; April 18, 2010 7:55 PM
diary said...: Really love Google's attitude here. Google gives users choices. And I agree with some of you here that perhaps it would be a good idea to offer Flash support as optional. True, there are a lot of Flash lovers and lots of Flash haters. I think that's not the key. The key here is that Google doesn't force people to love or hate.; April 19, 2010 5:15 AM
Amateur6 said...: So... the new Chrome BROWSER on the iPad would run Flash? Please please please?

A lot of the Flash haters here fail to understand that to most CREATIVES (i.e., people who actually produce original content), Flash is much easier to use for things like animation than it seems like HTML 5 will be. People keep thinking of Flash as a video plug-in, because it's been adopted as such due to its ubiquity. But there was a reason for Flash's popularity before it was adopted as a platform-neutral video player, and there will STILL be a need for such a vector-based platform AFTER HTML 5.; April 20, 2010 6:05 AM
John said...: Bundling/built-in with Adobe Flash is a wrong decision. However, Google Chrome should give the option to users if they really want to install it. Automating the installation and updating of Flash plugin is a very trivial thing; there is no need for Google to do it. Google, as a tech heavy & savvy company, should do something more challenging, such as improving Flash playback performance, and porting Flash player onto other processors - MIPS, ARM, PowerPC, other ASIC SoC etc or develop an open standard media player plugin such as SVG. Google also should develop her own web browser core components, instead of using Apple's webkit. It is ironic that Google, as an Internet tech company with enormous cash in bank, has never been able to develop its own browser core engine. On contrast, Apple has her own OS and browser core engine (webkit); Microsft has her own; Cisco has her own IOS. Google just does not have them. In the end of day, Google is just like Yahoo, Ebay, Facebook, Youtube, AOL.....; April 26, 2010 11:19 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»

Search our Blog

Archive

Subscribe

More Blogs from Google

Useful links

Bringing improved support for Adobe Flash Player to Google Chrome

211 comments: