Adobe Flash Mobile: MS-1 Apple-0

[bobb-mini]

Microsoft Licenses Adobe Mobile Software (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Microsoft-Adobe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[DerekVOF]

Jobs wouldn't license the current Flash Mobile version because, as he indicated previously, he thinks its garbage. I'm waiting for his "One more thing..." during the WWDC Keynote (at which time the SDK will be released as well)...

[BlackWolf]

yeah, it's not MS-1 because apple just wouldn't take flash lite as it is now because it's crap. so it's rather the high standards of apple than microsoft being better that caused this ;-)

[bobb-mini]

because it's crap.
Well now... I am no flash expert but the skeptical on me says, can this be another case of Not-Invented-Here (Apple) syndrome?

Am sure Apple would love everybody to use quicktime too but unfortunately the web community kinda voting toward Adobe.


About Adobe Flash, it runs slowly on my 650mhz labtop <waaaa!>, so I hit HELP and asked what can I do... it basically says I need a video card with 128m of ram. No way to "turn it down" to run on lesser platforms. For that, yes, I think AF is bloated at least on the PC version. The show picture/slideshow on the MSNBC website runs like dial-up! on my 650mhz That's ridiculous... they are just pictures!

[BlackWolf]

Well now... I am no flash expert but the skeptical on me says, can this be another case of Not-Invented-Here (Apple) syndrome?

Am sure Apple would love everybody to use quicktime too but unfortunately the web community kinda voting toward Adobe.


About Adobe Flash, it runs slowly on my 650mhz labtop <waaaa!>, so I hit HELP and asked what can I do... it basically says I need a video card with 128m of ram. No way to "turn it down" to run on lesser platforms. For that, yes, I think AF is bloated at least on the PC version. The show picture/slideshow on the MSNBC website runs like dial-up! on my 650mhz That's ridiculous... they are just pictures!

wouldn't say so. I'm no flash expert myself but from what I've read flash lite really doesn't support a lot of things and stuff so it's not really worth it. I mean, what good is flash for if it doesn't display a lot of stuff? people would end up complaining again anyways ...

[DerekVOF]

I think there needs to be some clarification - Flash Lite is a watered down version of Flash for mobile devices. I'm don't think it's a NIH syndrome. Apple likes to only release a product when they know they can top most people, like with the iPhone/iPod Touch -- multitouch screen, new ways to zoom in/out, full OS (MacOS X), full web browser (not some watered down version), etc. Why do something half-a$$'d?

Of course it may also be the case that since Adobe hasn't indicated any work at all on Flash for the iPod Touch/iPhone, there's nothing to sign an agreement about.

[mc4]

I'm surprised considering MS is pushing Silverlight so hard.

[kornchild2002]

I don't blame Apple for not allowing flash support on the iPod touch/iPhone. Yes, it would be nice to be able to browse flash websites in all their glory but not for the very limited battery life that we would get. I have a Pocket PC which is powered by Windows, it is running a hacked version of Flash. It normally gets about 3-3.5 hours when browsing the internet via wi-fi, not bad at all for a device that is about 3 years old. However, it gets about 1 hours when browsing flash websites. I just don't think that a 1 hour battery life is worth it just to view flash websites. Now, the next iPod touch might be worth it for flash playback if Apple increases the processor speed while increasing the efficiency as well as using actual RAM and have separate memory for storage (as what most Pocket PC's do). Then one might be able to get over 2 hours when browsing flash websites.

As it currently stands though, flash would just drain the iPod touch's battery too quickly and I am sure Apple's support inboxes would be flooded with "Why does meh iTouch only gits 1 hour when using teh intarnets?"

[bobb-mini]

I'm surprised considering MS is pushing Silverlight so hard.
Oh, that's just the old Egg in every Basket gambit.

When u have that kind of cash and don't know exactly what's gonna be big, BUY THEM ALL, and one of them gotta be the victor.

[gagit811]

flash would be nice, but i can do 90% of what I normaly look at on the web. I would like divx support, the ability to copy pictures from the web. A copy past feature would be nice.

[paranoidxe]

As far as I thought the performance of flash on the iPod Touch/iPhone wouldn't be great which is why they have avoided it right now..doesn't mean mobile flash sucks it means the hardware in the iPod Touch/iPhone isn't strong enough to support it. Of course Jobs is going to blame it on the development of mobile flash rather than his own products.

Also are people not aware how much less battery life it would be with flash intensive websites? Its already a mere 3 hours on a wifi connection, put flash in there and you've probably got half.

The iPod Touch/iPhone hardware needs a upgrade at the very least the battery capacity.

[DerekVOF]

I believe the H.264 decoder is built into one of the chips. Divx would probably require a lot of processor power to decrypt. I'm not sure how well it would work, but I'm sure someone will try to port it.

Don't know if you'll get your wish about downloading pictures from the web. Apple seems to be avoiding any ability to download to the iPod Touch due to the sandboxing methodology they're using to keep the OS clean/safe/protected/whatever.

Regarding paranoidxe's note - actually in an interview Steve Jobs said just that - that the full version of Flash was too much for the iPod Touch, but the Flash Mobile was (for lack of a better word) garbage.

EDIT: Read this article -- Flash is too beefy. Flash Mobile is too wussy. http://gizmodo.com/364173/steve-jobs-craps-on-adobe-mobile-flash-does-not-bode-well-for-iphone-support

[kornchild2002]

I believe the H.264 decoder is built into one of the chips. Divx would probably require a lot of processor power to decrypt. I'm not sure how well it would work, but I'm sure someone will try to port it.

Actually, mpeg-4 AVC (h.264) requires more processor power to both encode and decode. Divx is a early build of the standard mpeg-4 video format. So mpeg-4 AVC is more advanced than Divx but Divx doesn't require beefy hardware to encode or decode. As-is, the iPod touch has the hardware to playback Divx/Xvid files. The only thing is that Apple would have to open up the firmware to support the AVI container along with mp3 audio in a video. It wouldn't require much work at all.