If in say 3-6 months time most websites have updated to flash 10.1, would it also not be right to assume that Nokia would no longer be able to sell the n900? Surely you can't sell a smart phone that doesn't work?
Another question is, how does the lack of flash effect our contracts with Nokia? when I purchased my phone I wanted a "full" web experience and thats why I got the n900, if in 3 months time that is no longer possable then where do I stand as an EU citizen? Surely I can claim on the fact that a service was promised and then removed within x months?
(Reuters) - Nokia sold less than 100,000 top-of-the-range N900 smartphones in its first five months on the market, researcher Gartner said, indicating it has yet to mount a serious challenge to the iPhone and Blackberry.
I can't see Adobe or many other developers bothering with a population that small....
even if that enables the support to future population of MeeGo?
this naturally isn't true if meego and maemo don't work with same player at all...
even if that enables the support to future population of MeeGo?
this naturally isn't true if meego and maemo don't work with same player at all...
This is true, surely Nokia can see that an implimentation on flash 10.1 in maemo now will allow for easily transfer to any future meego platforms thanks to QT? Surely no matter what Nokia say, flash 10.1 will in no doubt make it's way to the n900 thanks to QT?
QT is a high level API that is unlikely to deliver the kind of development tools required to build the Flash plug-in. Low-level access to the system APIs will be required and they are going to be very different on MeeGo.
Does anyone know ehre would stand legally with regards to this issue as per my post above? At wat point do Nokia get fedup with our moaning and hand over ALL source code regarding the n900 so as to further the development of the n900 off our own backs?
A slightly technical side note. Flash on the N900 (Maemo) is AFAIK closer (=based on) the desktop version of Flash. All the others require a radically different approach (one of the reasons why Adobe specifically ports things to Android, BB and whoever). So from Adobe's pont of view, there isn't really much to announce for Maemo, it's a NPAPI based Linux build. As in, not much more than they want to announce things specifically for Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. Now comes the sticky point of the porting kit. Hey, here's this Linux porting kit ! Cool. But... does it support PowerVR hardware/drivers for the acceleration, 'cause its not that common on PCs ? Does it support ARM for non-desktop builds ? There can be many hidden gotchas Nokians could be forced to work around before it actually works on the N900 (we know from comments on the N800 that they ARE adding in Maemo-specific patches). Now you ask, if that is the case, why not fire back a volley at Adobe and say 'hey, its not that simple', but a) Nokia employs underpromise approach and/or b) They do not want to endanger future cooperation with Adobe on MeeGo/Symbian by bickering over a deprecated platform. On another side note, while we are speculating, one could say the no commercial support for MeeGo announcement would have been a good spot for Flash, too. It's always better dealing with 1 backlash instead of 2.
Does anyone know ehre would stand legally with regards to this issue as per my post above? At wat point do Nokia get fedup with our moaning and hand over ALL source code regarding the n900 so as to further the development of the n900 off our own backs?
Considering the license requirements of Flash 9, you'll never see that source code (not more than you see Flash 9 source code for Linux). Even Flash 10.1 is just in baby steps phase in this regard.
You think that adobe would be the ones saying to the likes of Nokia and other phone manufactures "if it's possable, a port of 10.1 to your current phones is a requirment of any future licensing agreements" it is a bit tough for Adobe to be making demands so I can understand this not being the case but surely Adobe could be at least alkting to campanies like Nokia saying, "we will give a discount on licensing if you port 10.1 to your current line of phones where applicable" as for Adobe it's just more users and therfore more market share.
As for source code I meant of meamo 5, so custom firmwares could be developed...?
You think that adobe would be the ones saying to the likes of Nokia and other phone manufactures "if it's possable, a port of 10.1 to your current phones is a requirment of any future licensing agreements" it is a bit tough for Adobe to be making demands so I can understand this not being the case but surely Adobe could be at least alkting to campanies like Nokia saying, "we will give a discount on licensing if you port 10.1 to your current line of phones where applicable" as for Adobe it's just more users and therfore more market share.
As for source code I meant of meamo 5, so custom firmwares could be developed...?
Flash Player 10.1 is royalty free so there are no discount incentives they can give. From their FAQ:
Originally Posted by
Adobe is making the next major releases of Flash Player and AIR for devices royalty free — across all platforms, desktops, and devices — for Open Screen Project participants. Current products such as Adobe Flash Lite® software are not affected.
Originally Posted by
Future versions starting with the next major versions of Flash Player and AIR for devices are royalty free as part of the Open Screen Project. However, a license (contract) still needs to be in place between Adobe and the licensee.
They are saying it needs a 800mhz+ Cortex A8 not 600mhz+.
Nokia and Palm have no devices like that released or announced.
That could be why Adobe is saying "Flash Player 10.1 will be available on Android Market by mid-2010." and "We expect Flash Player 10.1 to support other mobile platforms in the second half of 2010."
So is Adobe actually holding them back from releasing?
It could harm their image if Flash runs too slow wouldn't it?
I don't see what the big deal is though especially with FP9 running on the N900 already, they should upgrade it. FP10.1 wouldn't be slower than FP9, it would obviously be faster. But maybe Adobe is trying to play the newer-software-version-numbers-needs-newer-hardware card.
