So here are my questions for Adobe:
Is there still income from Flash Player licensing? If not, how does keeping the Player closed source help your business interests?
Is it the client side DRM you have in place in the Player that's stopping you from making it open source?
Do you not have the resources to communicate with the community that would develop around an open sourced player (knowing that you would have spend some time to justify many things that exist in the codebase to maintain backwards compatibility)?
Are you concerned that a rival would clone some of the technology you developed and implement it in their proprietary player (e.g. MS, but they already gave up on Silverlight)?
Would the sudden influx of new security patches as vulnerabilities are discovered and fixed potentially compromise the performance of the Player?
Are you worried that individuals with malicious intent will find new vulnerabilities and exploit them?
What are your other concerns that are preventing you from open sourcing the Flash Player?
Google pays lots of money for Adobe to auto opt-in Flash installs with Chrome.
My understanding of that arrangement is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship that guarantees that Chrome users have the latest version of Flash (and Chrome is thus more secure) and the Flash Player update adoption happens faster. It makes very little sense to me that Google would pay Adobe for that since Adobe benefits just as much as Google.
Now how much money this brings in, who knows.
Note that this is NOT the same as Flash being bundled with Chrome. This is Chrome being bundled with Flash.