So not only is Nokia trying to kill off the idea of Flash 10.1 for the N900 so are we, somedude and olighak? Let us not make excuses for Nokia or Adobe.
I went to the Adobe Flash download page and saw 5 different version of Flash 10.1 for Linux. It wouldn't take much for Adobe to port it over to Maemo.
I don't like having to visit 5 or more websites (OK... Sometimes it's only 1) to try and find some information which would have been available to me if I wasn't stopped by a lack of Flash 10.1 in my device. I went through the same thing (but much worse) with my previous phone (iPhone 1) and moved to the N900 to avoid it. Adobe can (more easily than anyone) and should port over one of their Linux versions of Flash 10.1 to the N900. Not doing so forces forces people to find (and become used to) other ways of accessing the information they need, reducing the need for Flash at all.
So not only is Nokia trying to kill off the idea of Flash 10.1 for the N900 so are we, somedude and olighak? Let us not make excuses for Nokia or Adobe.
I went to the Adobe Flash download page and saw 5 different version of Flash 10.1 for Linux. It wouldn't take much for Adobe to port it over to Maemo.
I don't like having to visit 5 or more websites (OK... Sometimes it's only 1) to try and find some information which would have been available to me if I wasn't stopped by a lack of Flash 10.1 in my device. I went through the same thing (but much worse) with my previous phone (iPhone 1) and moved to the N900 to avoid it. Adobe can (more easily than anyone) and should port over one of their Linux versions of Flash 10.1 to the N900. Not doing so forces forces people to find (and become used to) other ways of accessing the information they need, reducing the need for Flash at all.
I was not taking for or against any company i was just giving an example. how the business is carried somethings are just intellectual property that no one can get even if the law says so because another law would overrite it. and yes there are some linux version of flash because adobe saw a potential market there and which they have not seen or realized for maemo, and any law cannot make any company make a product for specific market. same as i have a car and i want to put the chinese petroleum on my car but i live in usa, not necessarily chinese petroleum has to provide me there petrol because it is not feasible for their business.
somedude, I never suggested that the changed law (not a new law) forces Adobe to port or write the software, simply that Adobe cannot claim that it is the full responsibility of Nokia to produce the Adobe Flash software for Adobe. Adobe has the code they need (they created Flash 9.4 for the N900, they have it) and could, in a matter of hours or days, port one of their existing Linux versions to the N900, or better yet clean up and release the version they displayed with the N900 in the video (if it was 10.1 as they claimed).
somedude, I never suggested that the changed law (not a new law) forces Adobe to port or write the software, simply that Adobe cannot claim that it is the full responsibility of Nokia to produce the Adobe Flash software for Adobe. Adobe has the code they need (they created Flash 9.4 for the N900, they have it) and could, in a matter of hours or days, port one of their existing Linux versions to the N900, or better yet clean up and release the version they displayed with the N900 in the video (if it was 10.1 as they claimed).
There's porting and there's optimizing and support. If it was only that easy. The issue is whether or not it's worth Adobe's time. If Nokia is barely supporting Maemo, why should Adobe?
somedude, I never suggested that the changed law (not a new law) forces Adobe to port or write the software, simply that Adobe cannot claim that it is the full responsibility of Nokia to produce the Adobe Flash software for Adobe. Adobe has the code they need (they created Flash 9.4 for the N900, they have it) and could, in a matter of hours or days, port one of their existing Linux versions to the N900, or better yet clean up and release the version they displayed with the N900 in the video (if it was 10.1 as they claimed).
if i own Adobe why would i use up my resources for a small market? while at the same time with same resources i can target a larger market segment resulting more profit.
thats the exact thinking of adobe may-be? or there really is something that adobe needs from Nokia to port the 10.1 because Nokia has that part locked down. (similar reason why no flasf for iPhone because of hardware and software lockdown?)
Adobe already charges $39 for support. They would profit from providing support for a Flash 10.1 version for N900.
N900 users are as "Techie" as techie can get. If we are forced to create effective ways around the need for Flash then that will trickle down to other devices. If you've grown used to a IU you tend to stick with it, so you would want the same "effective ways around the need for Flash" in your other devices. That (along with Apple) helps kill off Flash.
Adobe created Flash 9.4 for Maemo 5. They have the code they need and with any of the Linux versions they have already created could easily produce a Maemo 5 version of Flash 10.1 for the N900. Heck, to shut us up they could simply take Flash 9.4 and make a few small changes, have it show as 10.1 and keep us from having to find other ways which don't require Adobe software to access information.
The market share of a device doesn't seem to mean much to Adobe when it comes to Flash. 64-Bit versions of Windows OS have been around for many years now but there is not now nor has there been a version of Flash for it (only the 32-bit Windows version). There is a Beta version of Flash 10.1 for Linux 64-bit though. If a broad audience were their concern, why wouldn't they create a Windows 64-bit Flash 10.1 before a Linux 64-bit? Very few people are currently using Linux 64 because of a serious lack of 64 bit device drivers for the OS.
No Linux 64-Bit driver for my BD-RW, no Linux 64-Bit driver for three of my NIC's. At UMass Amherst the problem of a lack of drivers was found by most of us. I say "most" because some users have a combination of devices which are all covered, and others (like me) have a combination of devices of which nearly none are covered.
if i own Adobe why would i use up my resources for a small market? while at the same time with same resources i can target a larger market segment resulting more profit.
To save face as you used that market, no matter how small, to demonstrate the state of your technology, because your real targets were ridiculously unpresentable at the time (skip the N900 part of the infamous Kevin Lynch demo and look at what state the Android version was).
Originally Posted by
thats the exact thinking of adobe may-be? or there really is something that adobe needs from Nokia to port the 10.1 because Nokia has that part locked down. (similar reason why no flasf for iPhone because of hardware and software lockdown?)
They always say Flash is hardware independent and it falls back to software-based renderers/codecs. I just want a public ARM Linux build from them. I don't want them to care, know, or pretend they even heard about the N900. Just. publish. an. ARMv7. build. Seriously. I don't care about speed, I care about inaccessible content. Why don't they release an ARM build ? They released a specialized Android build so a generic one should be super-easy to do. Adobe's distribution model just plain sucks (regardless if Nokia is guilty or not of not pushing for an N900 release).
