Flasher Archive
[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
| Subject: | Re: FLASH: RE: OLD players |
| From: | Troy Evans |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:17:13 GMT |
Hi Ken
I hope this answers your questions :-)
Macromedia always has the latest Flash Player available on it's Shockwave
Download Center. This is how we distribute the Flash Player (along with
bundling), as of last month 42 Million Flash Player downloads.
We don't won't to give end users an option of which player to install, this
would be to confusing for them. So we always serve one version - the
latest. This ensures all of the functionality of Flash 4,3, and 2 work
properly ( and so we fix and problems too.
We only provided you with a player for each version so you could test the
functionality of Flash 2 & 3 content. We also don't want old player
versions been re-distributed, as we are shipping Flash 4, not a previous
version (as you know Flash 3 & 2 playback without any issues inside Flash
Player 4)
Automatic Update - Flash Player does not have an automatic update simply
because it would add to much size to the Player, the installation is one of
the reasons why Flash is so successful.
Problems - The team is referring to an internal process an resource
allocation - that is all.
Regards
Troy Evans
Flash Player Product Marketing Manager
At 09:35 PM 3/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>John Dowdell wrote:
>>
>>>Tech support has been pushing for such a historical online repository for
a
>>>long time, but -- when you stop to think about versions and sub-versions
>>>and installers and all -- there are significant implementation problems
to
>>>overcome.
>>
>>Ken Sherwood wrote:
>>
>>>Could you please note the problems? I just don't get it.
>>
>>The situation that JD is referencing concerns the problems with getting
>>*old* files up and live. Frankly speaking, the idea of making old files
>>available can cause a lot of problems.
>
>I STILL don't get it. WHAT are the "PROBLEMS" that you guys keep referring
>to? Just make two zip files: one with all the Mac plugins in it, and one
>with all the PC plugins in it.
>
>Simple. Straightforward. WHERE'S the problem?
>
>>When you think
>>about it, most software companies DO NOT provide old versions of their
>>products.
>
>It *ain't* about "companies". It's about "companies who provide successive
>generations of browsers or plugins, many older versions of which ARE
>*STILL IN USE* by many surfers. To the best of my knowledge, Netscape and
>Microsoft provide *former* versions of their browsers. In my imagination,
>one of their primary purposes in doing this is a *desire to accomodate*
>the needs of their *developers* ... a desire that MM apparently lacks.
>
>>Once a new version is out, the old ones are history.
>
>NOT SO! Your statement implies that they suddenly disappear from surfers'
>Plugins folders. How ridiculous. If Macromedia had set up an "automatic
>update" procedure for the Flash plugin, as they *have* with the Shockwave
>plugin, this silliness that we're bantering about here would be
>unnecessary. But you DON'T. WHY NOT?
>
>>Please note that I said "most" companies. I'm sure you can think of
>>exceptions.
>
>Just the two major companies who provide browser software! I'd hoped
>(naively, it seems) that MM would take a similar, more benign public stand
>toward their developers' *clearly stated* needs regarding this matter.
>
>>Our company's goal is to give everyone
>
>Everyone? Then why no automatic updates?
>
>>the newest and latest Flash Player.
>
>Yet statistics promoted by your people in other current threads here tell
>us that about how *half* of all surfers DON'T EVEN have ANY Flash 4
>plugin. Such info DESTROYS your contention that "the old ones *become
>history*" (emphasis mine).
>
>>An exception
>
>An exception to WHAT? MM's unwillingness to *really* "open source"?
>
>>was made so that developers can test their work easier
> ^^^^^^
>Well, geez, thanks for cutting us a break.
>
>>without having to track the files down on their own.
>
>Yet you only have given us a small handful of ALL OF the plugins.
>
>>This runs contrary to our internal mechanisms.
>
>Well then, your mysterious "internal mechanisms" certainly aren't oriented
>toward supporting your developers, right? We *need* them. Has MM not yet
>heard this?
>
>You say that our need runs counter to your company's typical policy. How
>do you expect us to react to your statement of such an adamant position,
>taken on the part of your company?
>
>> A considerable amount of work was done internally - much of the legwork
>> by yours truly, for this TechNote - and it was purely as a gift to all
>> of you developers. Seriously.
>
>For which I've already publicly expressed gratitude -- or, at least,
>benign silence.
>
>But, again, how much trouble would it be to make two zip files and post
>them? If I'd been diligent and anal retentive from the beginning, I'd have
>in my possession all of the necessary files, and I could do it myself,
>WITH *NO* so-called "PROBLEMS"*.
>
>WHAT, EXACTLY, is the source of the so-called "problems" that you guys
>seem to be having with this concern of ours? You keep saying "problems"
>BUT you never make it clear as to *what* these "problems" really are.
>
>I suspect PROBLEMS on your end, getting through to Management that
>Developers MATTER. PLEASE, prove me wrong.
>
>>We don't normally offer this sort of service,
>
>I suppose that this statement from you is meant to assure that all of us
>will feel PROPER GRATITUDE for what you seem to be trying to describe as
>some sort of heroic effort. My relatively meaningless personal opinion is,
>too little, too late.
>
>Now you really have me curious about the distinction between those
>services that you DO offer normally, and those that your company has
>decided to DENY to their developers, as a matter of corporate policy.
>
>I'm also curious about who, exactly, sets these ultra-conservative
>policies which appear to disfavor the interests of developers, in favor of
>Macromedia's Need for Control of Everything. You've made all of these
>plugins available, over time ... why not all of them, NOW? I still don't
>get it, and I'm rarely daft.
>
>>and it took several departments working together to make these files
>>available.
>
>~~:-| Matt, are you serious? Find 25-or-so files, put them in a folder,
>zip the folder, put it on the server. WHY IS THIS A "PROBLEM"?
>
>>As JD pointed out, no amount of exclamation points
>
>I never use more than one in a row, best to my knowledge.
>
>>(or swearing)
>
>Gosh. Did I say "Hell" or "damn"? Sorry if I did; I get perturbed at the
>apparent ETERNAL communication breakdown. You guys keep saying "problem".
>I keep saying "no apparent problem".
>
>Who's correct?
>
>>is going to make people pay attention. I personally do this because it's
>>satisfying
>
>Look Mark. I'm not attacking you. You and JD serve as "symbols" and as
>points of focus for discussion, that's all. Sometimes when I type "you", I
>mean "you," Mark W. And sometimes when I say "you" I mean MM. It all sorta
>blends anyway.
>
>>and I enjoy doing what I can for people.
>
>I see that, admire that, and believe that *that* is the only way to
>survive the workplace.
>
>>(I get paid, as well.)
>
>Just MM's way of suggesting that they might actually care about your
>personal financial concerns! :-)
>
>Sorry to hang a hook on that, but: we Flash developers have *concerns*
>too, and I'll bet that we'd universally appreciate greater support from MM
>regarding this matter!
>
>>However, it certainly makes you question this when people still have the
>>nerve
>
>... kind of a "nervy" thing to say, from an MM rep to MM's customers!
>
>>to complain, even after you have done for them things that you were not
>>mandated to do.
>
>DONE WHAT? A small smattering of plugins? That IS NOT what we have been
>asking for!
>
>Hopefully, by now, what we ARE asking for is clear. If not please let me
know.
>
>I never have wanted to appear unappreciative of MM's efforts on our (Flash
>developers') behalf. If I have, I attribute it to excessive vehemence
>about this particular current concern, and I sincerely apologize for any
>miscommunication regarding my intent.
>
>And, Mark, what is this talk about "mandate"? WHO has the power to issue
>such a mandate? Certainly not us developers. We issue "requests" and
>"wishes" (per MM's avenues of communication).
>
>>I would suggest that we stop asking "why" and start asking "how".
>
>GLADLY ... my MAIN POINT.
>
>*HOW* is it possible that MM thinks it can pull the wool over its Flash
>developers' eyes and expect us to believe that wrapping 25 Flash plugins
>into a zip file constitutes a "PROBLEM"?
>
>Hopefully you will answer this *ONE* question for me.
>
>TIA,
>
>Ken Sherwood
>
>p.s. BTW, some feedback:
>
>MM's technotes search engine has been buggy for several days. Can't sort
>search results by column.
>
>p.p.s. John Dowdell wrote in this thread:
>
>> What, specifically, would you like beyond that set of sixteen antique
>> players?
>
>My reply: John, 'love ya, but please count again. NOT 16. 14. Plugins
>Flash 2, and Flash 3, for Win 3.1 vs. Win '95+, are the same.
>
>A paltry subset of the *univeral* set.
>
>And, hasn't it been obvious, all along, that what we're asking for is a
>*complete set* of historic plugins? Around 50 of them?
>
>Is it really so hard for MM to imagine WHY we might be wanting these?
>
>--
>
> ATTENTION MACROMEDIA:
>
> Historic plugins.
> We want them.
> We need them.
> May we have them?
> If not, why not?
flasher is generously supported by...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
flashforward2000 and The Flash Film Festival
"The World�s Premier Flash Solutions Conference and Expo"
March 27-29, Nob Hill Masonic Center, San Francisco, California
-Register before Feb 25 and save $200!!-- www.flashforward2000.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email help
chinwag [dot] com
Replies
Re: FLASH: RE: OLD players, unique
[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]
