Imagine going to a web page and using voip on wifi ( apple and at&t no like-y )

Amazing how many people (at Erickson, LG, Samsung, etc.) actually pointed to a camera flash (confirming David’s comment about the name), when I asked them about the Flash possibilities of their devices/software …

They really didn’t know what Flas is!

First, the name. What comes to mind when you talk to Joe Public about “flash” on a phone ? Perhaps the little widget next to the camera lens ?

Second: the market. The market is not geeks who produce lovingly crafted stuff for obscure, half baked and buggy web sites like MOSH. The market is, yes, Joe and Joanna Q. Public. They buy phones. They, if sufficiently motivated, will ask for phones with “flash” support, BECAUSE they’ve heard and seen that with such a phone they can do cool things.

That will get the market moving. Not stupid promotions (and US $10 million – come ON. Absolute peanuts – shows how motivated Adobe really is)

Does Adobe honestly believe that this totally artificial attempt to foist Flash, AIR *and* bloody Nokia on developers is going to result in anything other yet more obscure geekware designed to meet these ridiculous conditions to get funding rather than to build genuinely attractive products ?

Roll on Silverlight Mobile….. It is quite amazing that Adobe has succeeded in making *Microsoft* look like the agile, crafty underdog in this pond. I wonder if it will be possible to find anybody on the Adobe stand at Barcelona who can actually tie her/his own shoelaces. If so for heaven’s sake, put them in charge NOW!

1) When computers deal with video, sound, large photos, scaling vector artwork for animation, and other graphics intensive tasks, THEY REQUIRE PROCESSING POWER that is greater than simpler things like rendering a page of text for example. This is true for software running locally on a computer AND for things running from the internet in a web browser.

2) A handheld device isn’t quite the same as a laptop for processor, memory and onboard video processing (gpu etc).

Doesn’t it seem a bit logical that it’s not easy for things to play perfectly on a phone with today’s hardware?

It’s easy to say flash sucks on a desktop or mobile device, but where is the benchmark for comparison? What other browser plugins are accomplishing the same demanding interactivity better than Flash? There are none that come close. Javascript doesn’t do the same things and there is very little Silverlight content to compare to. JavaFX? Sproutcore? not even close.

iPhone and android phones will have powerful enough hardware in the next few years and with an optimized flash 10 player that taps into the system more than a browser version we will have a sufficient solution.

And if people don’t want flash content they don’t have to have it and can turn it off and shut the hell up. Some of us want the choice just like we have on a desktop or laptop. And some of us don’t have petty gripes against Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and just want to see good content.

its not that hard to assume that apple CAN run flash in the iphone as when it was released it was expressed that the iphone product was a slimmed down version of MacOSX.

Of course which does run adobe flash.

.. and before you assault the above comments regarding apple and its tight grip on their business models, dont forget that although the poster did not cite and references, it has always been well known that apple uses strong proprietary models in controlling their business and protecting the growth of their products.

Flash seems to be a little behind on this.

Adobe have been *seriously* lucky that Flash was picked up and used for video delivery otherwise they would still be a format for web banner ads and other annoying intrusions.

All evidence points to the fact that they are incapable of producing a Flash product that doesn’t require excessive resources. Their only hope for mobile devices is for the hardware to catch up.