This is getting silly. If people are pissed about flash on the iPad + iPhone, then they won't buy these devices. But trying to employ the "taking away your freedom" argument is incorrect and seems like a last ditch flailing effort by Adobe.
It reminds me of the used car salesman in True Lies when he's posing as a spy and trying to get Jamie Lee Curtis to sleep with him. "If you won't do it for me, then how about doing it for your country".
The same argument could have been made about people buying Windows in the 90's. If everyone was so pissed about what MS did to Netscape they could have simply chosen another OS, but they didn't. Consumers don't realize the issues at hand, they just want a cool device, just like they wanted an OS that worked and couldn't care less about who got screwed along the way.
I love how they are making use of what is essentially a 'Flash hack' commonly used by shady types to get around popup blockers – load a Flash object and use that to launch a new window – to show a popup preaching the virtues of Flash.
This is really strange. Adobe is highlighting the worst parts of their product in their attempt to appear the good guy in the fight. It's as if a politician were attempting to win votes by throwing bricks with political slogans attached through the windows of his constituents. It may have worked for the Nazis, but I don't think it will work for Adobe.
The piece doesn't speculate much on how this is getting forced through Adsense. That's the interesting part for me, as either Google is aware of it, or it's an against-terms workaround. If I had to /guess/, it might be related to the "rich media" and video formats they offer, with some custom code getting pushed through in the embed.
I didn't find out about the pop-ups until about 2am, and was exhausted, before I finished writing the post I accidentally closed the tab, and lost the ad, because Google yanked it, presumably. I'm still not certain about how it was occurring but it was all javascript, about a dozen different script tags, with the exception of this one piece that called the flash.
My main focus was on the point that Adobe was targeting specific users, with the pop-up.
Oh, I wasn't criticising your piece! I just see a bigger story in how the ad was delivered rather than to whom. Anything that gets around my choice of not opening popups is evil to start, but I'm very intrigued if this really is coming through Adsense or some other mechanism. If Adobe can take advantage of it, perhaps more insidious agents could too..
It was definitely coming through Adsense, the code on my post was within the ad, which had multiple indicators that it was indeed from Google. The only proof that is left is the DoubleClick header, and the link within the "url" variable.
I'm also a bit perturbed that someone could emulate what Adobe has done, and use it as an attack vector, with widespread consequence.
Does Google allow third party tags to fill unused inventory via Doubleclick? Or perhaps do they allow SWF as the trafficked creative? If so, either could be a vector for the code to slip through.
This doesn't abuse AdSense to force anything, it's simply using doubleclick as a stats tracker to see who clicks. If you worship a brand please don't allow it to cause you to spread misinformation about its competitors on the internet.
I'm new to HN, is there no down-vote or report as inaccurate mechanism?
Ok, use as a "stats tracker" doesn't explain the UA manipulation.
Also I don't know what brand you think I'm worshiping. I am not an Apple Fanboy, I refuse to even use an iPod, not a Google Fanboy, I criticize them fairly often, and as for Adobe, I use their desktop tools, but on the web I don't think of them much. I despise brands, because they promote homogeneity. I prefer products that work the best, and go with what works.
That's true, but why would someone advertise for Adobe? The linked content goes to Adobe's page, on the topic, http://www.adobe.com/choice/?sdid=GXRVD, as well as use the same ads as they used in the papers yesterday.
Good question, but this still seems fishy to me. Why would they do something that would so obviously backfire? And unless I misread something, the ad doesn't even work without Flash. If they're trying to target iPad / iPhone users deprived of Flash, why would you make an ad that doesn't work without Flash installed? This seems very amateur-ish.
They aren't targeting iPhone/iPad users by default, they are only going after "Mac" and "Opera" User-Agents, that also have Flash 8 or higher.
They're calling out Apple through it's other core base, that can use Flash. The Flash also isn't in the add on Linux or Windows, unless of course you are using Opera. If you are using one of these systems or those without, or disabled, Flash, you only see a hyperlinked .gif.
Actually he confirmed that the Choice campaign was one of their projects and goes on to say that he doubted that Adobe would have wasted bandwidth on developing something so nefarious. At least that's my read of it.
"For what it's worth, this project was done with a rather rapid turnaround, and I'd be surprised if there was bandwidth to innovate new ways of disrupting popup disruptors within it...."
The rapid turnaround actually makes me suspect Adobe. Are we to believe that somebody else came up with a fancy js/Flash combo exploit, and decided its first use should be a false flag ad for Adobe based on a day or two old campaign? I don't think Occam's razor is kind to Adobe.
You are not taking into account the Apple fanbois that now want Adobe's blood because Flash works so well on Android. Adobe is sticking it to the One True Religion, and the followers aren't happy.
(I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea. I personally hate Flash for technical reasons, but it really comes down to having choice. I don't use Flash and won't develop Flash apps... but you can do whatever you want.)
My experience has been that the Adobe fans are way more up in arms about this than the Apple fans. What does an Apple user hope to gain here? That is very unclear to me. The "true believers" have already put the war behind them; the Adobe warriors are the ones still fighting...
Yes, it's been confirmed, someone else saw the same source, an ad in Google Reader on a Techcrunch article, that I hadn't shared when I was first working on the story. Here is the discussion we were having about it when I went to look into the issue. http://ff.im/kjhfH
It reminds me of the used car salesman in True Lies when he's posing as a spy and trying to get Jamie Lee Curtis to sleep with him. "If you won't do it for me, then how about doing it for your country".