You don't get it? No matter how easy the update process is theoretically, it's impossible to update when an update hasn't been provided--the typical state of Android devices and a never-happened occurrence (knock on wood) for iPhones and iPod touches.
Updates for Android exist for a good number of handsets... it just seems like it takes more than your average user to utilize them for the most part. To me it's akin to jailbreaking an iPhone. Only those people with the drive, confidence, and technical acumen to do it will do it.
As others have stated before, it's the ease of updating on the iPhone that sets it apart. Building a kernel from git repositories and rooting the phone to install is not something I would expect my mother to be able to do, but I think she can handle plugging in an iPhone and pressing the update button in iTunes. Perhaps some providers offer timely Android updates with streamlined upgrading, but I don't believe this is the norm. In addition, I don't know that you can upgrade an HTC SenseUI based OS to anything other than the vanilla Android distro unless the precompiled binary is made available.
So if the above is true, a user buys an iPhone and gets at least two major updates without major hassle, and the same cannot be said of your average Android phone.
Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these points.
As for the Flash implementation in the Android video, I'll admit that at first I was a little impressed. But after rewatching it seemed like both the animation and the video stuttered quite a bit (and the "unoptimized for mobile" message is pretty annoying... they will hopefully make this less "in-your-face" in the release version). I did have to watch without sound both times, so maybe just the video itself was bad? If not, this is disappointing on the new hotness Android OS with the top hardware available at the moment. It's nice to have an option for Flash, but if I decide to stay with the iPhone on the next go-around, I won't lament what I'm missing if that's what the experience is going to be like.
I'm not sure of your point, as it was very clear what jragosta wrote, here, I will quote it again for you...
No mention of market share for the device, no mention of flash version, just a straight out incorrect statement.
well, I understand why you wouldn't to read all that guy's posts.
But he was going off on how flash would only reach 1% penetration on smartphones by the end on the year, so, though I actually didn't realize the n900 had flash 9 on it already (and my n97 test phone seems to play some flash sites fine funny enough), I just thought it was kinda funny, you know, that maybe we're already past 1%
Honestly no need for everyone's feathers to get too too ruffled.
I posted Nilay Patel's analysis above. The guy is a patent lawyer so he usually has intelligent analysis.
Sorry, I didn't notice you'd posted the link. In any case, I believe it was important to point out here that, contrary to what AI claims in the title of this post, HTC didn't countersue.
In my unprofessional opinion, after briefly examining the 5 patents HTC cites, HTC doesn't have much of a case. Four of the 5 patents are antiquated in light of the Apple iPhone. In at least one, the use of a "page selection device" is mentioned. I doubt a court of law would consider fingers to be "devices". The 5th patent (applied for by HTC 9 months after the iPhone was publicly displayed) was awarded just yesterday. This patent mentions power saving technology for which Apple quite conceivably has prior art that would protect it in a patent suit.
Except that's not what jragosta was going on about. I actually did acknowledge carrier issues with updates. Here in Canada, Rogers faced a minor revolt from Android users over one Android update, and it actually gave out free phones to make up for it. Anyway, jragosta was going on and on about how it's difficult to update. Clearly untrue.
I guess it's too much trouble for you to read what I actually wrote, so you have to make things up.
What I wrote was that updating was difficult or impossible. If the carriers don't provide an update as you're agreeing, doesn't that make it difficult or impossible to update the phone?
Sounds like you're simply proving I was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So that would make jragosta wrong then
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
ok, so I am an Adobe shill because I proved you wrong? ok, I see your logic there, you have none.
Like I said, the Nokia N900 has a full version of Flash 9.4 on it, and it has the same processor as the iPhone, so why can it run on one phone, and not another. I'm against Flash as much as the next person, and I will be happy when HTML5 support is tidied up to make it more useable, but that doesn't change the fact, Flash is currently supported on a mobile phone.
Nokia's market value is just over $7 billion. If Apple bought them then they'd have all the patents and prior art that matter in the mobile device markets. If Nokia wins their lawsuits with Apple then it could cost Apple several billions of dollars. It appears more worth it to get the European penetration that Nokia has and their portfolio of patents than to risk losing thus paying mightily. Apple could nail every mobile carier including HTC with Nokia in-house.
Nokia's market value is just over $7 billion. If Apple bought them then they'd have all the patents and prior art that matter in the mobile device markets. If Nokia wins their lawsuits with Apple then it could cost Apple several billions of dollars. It appears more worth it to get the European penetration that Nokia has and their portfolio of patents than to risk losing thus paying mightily. Apple could nail every mobile carier including HTC with Nokia in-house.
May I ask where you got your $7 billion figure from, as it differs somewhat from anything else I can find.
Well I'll be finding another restaurant, preferably across the road, and when te restaurant owner looks over and sees his competitor full of people with iPhones, then maybe the penny will drop.
That he's wasting money on his website because it isn't performing it's intended purpose, i.e. attracting customers.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Just because it isn't released doesn't mean its not usable. A lot of HTML5 is most certainly employable and available to developers. But it most certainly doesn't have all its kinks outs. And it probably isn't anywhere close to be capable of replacing Flash. If it was, I suspect that developers would have migrated on their own.
Anyway, as a consumer I don't really care. I just want to be able to use my phone to surf the web. If Flash is available now so be it. Couldn't care less if it's laggy either. At least I can access the website. For example, nothing more annoying than going to a restaurant's site (and for some reason I come across lots of restaurant websites that use Flash) and not being able to check it out because Flash isn't available on my phone. I'll be happy when I can access any website I want on my phone and won't have to run to my Mac just to read a menu. If that's Flash today, then give me Flash on my phone. If that's HTML5, then give me that.
But if and when Flash is gone, I won't be crying tears for Adobe either....
As for the dogmatic stance of Apple. Good for them. And good on their users who are making the right choice for themselves. If they have the patience to put up with blue bricks, good on them. They're better people than me! I could care less about this standard and that standard. I just want a phone that works and let's me access the information I want, when I want. That's important to my user experience.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
A developer can only do what they are told to do, they can make recommendations, but the person paying the bill makes the decision, rightly, or wrongly.
Updates for Android exist for a good number of handsets... it just seems like it takes more than your average user to utilize them for the most part. To me it's akin to jailbreaking an iPhone. Only those people with the drive, confidence, and technical acumen to do it will do it.
As others have stated before, it's the ease of updating on the iPhone that sets it apart. Building a kernel from git repositories and rooting the phone to install is not something I would expect my mother to be able to do, but I think she can handle plugging in an iPhone and pressing the update button in iTunes. Perhaps some providers offer timely Android updates with streamlined upgrading, but I don't believe this is the norm. In addition, I don't know that you can upgrade an HTC SenseUI based OS to anything other than the vanilla Android distro unless the precompiled binary is made available.
That's only if the phone is rooted. In which case, you get the same hassles as having a jailbroken iPhone.
If you haven't rooted your Android, it's dead easy to update. Either you click okay when you get the updates available icon in the notification blind or you go through 4 clicks from the home screen:
settings > about phone > system updates .... and if there are any it tells you and asking you if you want to update. You click 'Install Now'.
And I am pretty sure with HTC phones you can turn the Sense UI on and off....though I've never had an HTC Sense UI device so don't quote me on that.....
I guess it's too much trouble for you to read what I actually wrote, so you have to make things up.
What I wrote was that updating was difficult or impossible. If the carriers don't provide an update as you're agreeing, doesn't that make it difficult or impossible to update the phone?
Sounds like you're simply proving I was right.
That's what you wrote in the NPD thread:
Quote:
That's the way most of the junk out there 'works'. On paper, things work well. In the real world, they aren't worth anything. There was an article on this forum just a few days about about how few Android users ever bothered to upgrade their OS - because of the difficulty of tracking down the upgrades (due to fragmentation). Maybe it's supposed to work smoothly, but in the real world, it doesn't.
Except there's no 'tracking down' of updates in real life. You'd know that if you had actually touched an Android device once. You simply check for updates and install them if they are available. And when they do come out, Android notifies you. The only time you'd have go looking is if you somehow missed a notification (I dunno how that happens though).
You're right that fragmentation happens because carriers sometimes interfere with updates or the OEMs delay updates to work in their skins. I admitted that in the last thread. But again I take issue with 'hunting down' updates. You don't have to do that. You just wait and the update gets to you. Those folks who 'hunt' for updates are analogous to people who try and find beta builds of the latest iPhone OS. Would you consider them to be average iPhone users updating? Don't conflate some Android geeks experience with the average user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
Fair enough. But your original assertion was that there wasn't ANY devices mobile devices that could handle Flash. There are.
The N900 has Flash. Not Flash Lite. Last I checked that was a full version of Flash. At least Adobe (you know the people who make Flash) say so. Now if you want to discuss how well it runs on there for things like video, I'll probably agree with you. But such pompous blanket statements (like saying, "As it is, there is not currently ANY mobile device that run a full version of Flash. None.") won't help your credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
So we show you a phone that runs Flash and that makes us Android shills? If I tell you that that such and such phone has a built-in tip calculator, does that make me a tip calculator shill?
None of us brought up the issue of why Flash can or cannot run on the iPhone. So calm your Apple Defence Force instincts. I couldn't care less. That's Apple's call. It's their device. They can put whatever they want on there. I only care about the impact on me as a user. If it works for me, I stay. If it doesn't work for me, I can always vote with my wallet and buy a non-Apple phone. I actually find all whining about Apple and Flash useless and retarded. If you want Flash, ditch your iPhone and get something that does Flash.
Well I'll be finding another restaurant, preferably across the road, and when te restaurant owner looks over and sees his competitor full of people with iPhones, then maybe the penny will drop.
That he's wasting money on his website because it isn't performing it's intended purpose, i.e. attracting customers.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
Wow you must really hate Flash to pass on good restaurants just because they have a Flash website. Or do you just go use your laptop/desktop like everybody else, when you can't read the menu on your phone?
For me personally, I care about the food, not what web standard they are using for their website. That's how I decide on which restaurant to eat at. Well, to each his own I suppose. Some look at the menu. Some look at which graphics platforms are being used.
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
what a selective, and some might say dishonest, bit of presentation. your statement clearly implies that flash 9.4 cannot play h264 video at all, which leads you to your conclusion that 9.4 is not a "full" version of flash.
This apparently is not the case at all.
Here is what the text you link says, and this is quoted from the Adobe website (i added the bold for emphasis)
[/QUOTE]Adobe Flash Player 9.4 release version 9.0.124.0, introduced an incompatibility with Flash Media Server 3.0 which affects H.264/AAC streams. Flash Player 9.4 will be unable to play back H.264/AAC content streamed from Flash Media Interactive Server 3 and Flash Media Streaming Server 3 over the RTMP, RTMPT and RTMPS protocols. This issue does not affect content streamed over the RTMPE and RTMPTE protocols regardless of the encoding format. Videos encoded using Sorenson Spark, On2, MP3, or Nelly Moser are not affected.[/QUOTE]
The text from Adobe says that there is an incompatibility between 9.4 and Media Server 3.
Flash 9.4 can play h264 videos streamed from other protocols.
Please cut the noise, you incredible droids you. The facts are:
1) Android marketplace is highly fragmented. Maybe Google and all the device manufacturers will eventually work this out, but as of today, it's fragmented. Updates are simple, when they're available, and that's the problem: lack of availability. Google patches a security hole and almost nobody gets it--except the bad guys, of course, because Android is open source.
2) Flash sucks. (I block Flash, and when it can't be blocked, I run from it).
3) Apple is in a tough spot, because everybody knows how hot its technology is.
4) HTC is in an even tougher spot, because their pre-iPhone technology looks ancient and, boy, has Apple patented the iPhone.
Please cut the noise, you incredible droids you. The facts are:
1) Android marketplace is highly fragmented. Maybe Google and all the device manufacturers will eventually work this out, but as of today, it's fragmented. Updates are simple, when they're available, and that's the problem: lack of availability. Google patches a security hole and almost nobody gets it--except the bad guys, of course, because Android is open source.
2) Flash sucks. (I block Flash, and when it can't be blocked, I run from it).
3) Apple is in a tough spot, because everybody knows how hot its technology is.
4) HTC is in an even tougher spot, because their pre-iPhone technology looks ancient and, boy, has Apple patented the iPhone.
I own an iPhone, as well as multiple Mac computers. However, that does not excuse deceptive posting, where one implies that Flash is incapable of doing something, when that is not the case. The simple fact is, that jrgosta implied that Flash 9.4 was completely incapable of playing h264 videos, and that simply is not the case according to the Adobe document he linked in an attempt to prove that Flash was incapable of h264 video playback.
HTC has problems, but one does not lose one's patent simply because a newer technology comes along.
Comments
You don't get it? No matter how easy the update process is theoretically, it's impossible to update when an update hasn't been provided--the typical state of Android devices and a never-happened occurrence (knock on wood) for iPhones and iPod touches.
Updates for Android exist for a good number of handsets... it just seems like it takes more than your average user to utilize them for the most part. To me it's akin to jailbreaking an iPhone. Only those people with the drive, confidence, and technical acumen to do it will do it.
As others have stated before, it's the ease of updating on the iPhone that sets it apart. Building a kernel from git repositories and rooting the phone to install is not something I would expect my mother to be able to do, but I think she can handle plugging in an iPhone and pressing the update button in iTunes. Perhaps some providers offer timely Android updates with streamlined upgrading, but I don't believe this is the norm. In addition, I don't know that you can upgrade an HTC SenseUI based OS to anything other than the vanilla Android distro unless the precompiled binary is made available.
So if the above is true, a user buys an iPhone and gets at least two major updates without major hassle, and the same cannot be said of your average Android phone.
Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these points.
As for the Flash implementation in the Android video, I'll admit that at first I was a little impressed. But after rewatching it seemed like both the animation and the video stuttered quite a bit (and the "unoptimized for mobile" message is pretty annoying... they will hopefully make this less "in-your-face" in the release version). I did have to watch without sound both times, so maybe just the video itself was bad? If not, this is disappointing on the new hotness Android OS with the top hardware available at the moment. It's nice to have an option for Flash, but if I decide to stay with the iPhone on the next go-around, I won't lament what I'm missing if that's what the experience is going to be like.
hmmm. would the n900 represent at least 1% of he smartphone marketshare?
I'm not sure of your point, as it was very clear what jragosta wrote, here, I will quote it again for you...
As it is, there is not currently ANY mobile device that run a full version of Flash. None.
No mention of market share for the device, no mention of flash version, just a straight out incorrect statement.
I'm not sure of your point, as it was very clear what jragosta wrote, here, I will quote it again for you...
No mention of market share for the device, no mention of flash version, just a straight out incorrect statement.
well, I understand why you wouldn't to read all that guy's posts.
But he was going off on how flash would only reach 1% penetration on smartphones by the end on the year, so, though I actually didn't realize the n900 had flash 9 on it already (and my n97 test phone seems to play some flash sites fine funny enough), I just thought it was kinda funny, you know, that maybe we're already past 1%
Honestly no need for everyone's feathers to get too too ruffled.
I posted Nilay Patel's analysis above. The guy is a patent lawyer so he usually has intelligent analysis.
Sorry, I didn't notice you'd posted the link. In any case, I believe it was important to point out here that, contrary to what AI claims in the title of this post, HTC didn't countersue.
In my unprofessional opinion, after briefly examining the 5 patents HTC cites, HTC doesn't have much of a case. Four of the 5 patents are antiquated in light of the Apple iPhone. In at least one, the use of a "page selection device" is mentioned. I doubt a court of law would consider fingers to be "devices". The 5th patent (applied for by HTC 9 months after the iPhone was publicly displayed) was awarded just yesterday. This patent mentions power saving technology for which Apple quite conceivably has prior art that would protect it in a patent suit.
Except that's not what jragosta was going on about. I actually did acknowledge carrier issues with updates. Here in Canada, Rogers faced a minor revolt from Android users over one Android update, and it actually gave out free phones to make up for it. Anyway, jragosta was going on and on about how it's difficult to update. Clearly untrue.
I guess it's too much trouble for you to read what I actually wrote, so you have to make things up.
What I wrote was that updating was difficult or impossible. If the carriers don't provide an update as you're agreeing, doesn't that make it difficult or impossible to update the phone?
Sounds like you're simply proving I was right.
So that would make jragosta wrong then
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
ok, so I am an Adobe shill because I proved you wrong? ok, I see your logic there, you have none.
Like I said, the Nokia N900 has a full version of Flash 9.4 on it, and it has the same processor as the iPhone, so why can it run on one phone, and not another. I'm against Flash as much as the next person, and I will be happy when HTML5 support is tidied up to make it more useable, but that doesn't change the fact, Flash is currently supported on a mobile phone.
well, I understand why you wouldn't to read all that guy's posts.
Sorry, no offense, I thought you were defending him for a minute.
HTC sues Al Gore, claims violation of its internet patent.
Shortly later, Robert Reich gives an interview where he describes HTC as a bunch of poopyheads.
Sorry, no offense, I thought you were defending him for a minute.
hell no
Nokia's market value is just over $7 billion. If Apple bought them then they'd have all the patents and prior art that matter in the mobile device markets. If Nokia wins their lawsuits with Apple then it could cost Apple several billions of dollars. It appears more worth it to get the European penetration that Nokia has and their portfolio of patents than to risk losing thus paying mightily. Apple could nail every mobile carier including HTC with Nokia in-house.
May I ask where you got your $7 billion figure from, as it differs somewhat from anything else I can find.
That he's wasting money on his website because it isn't performing it's intended purpose, i.e. attracting customers.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
Just because it isn't released doesn't mean its not usable. A lot of HTML5 is most certainly employable and available to developers. But it most certainly doesn't have all its kinks outs. And it probably isn't anywhere close to be capable of replacing Flash. If it was, I suspect that developers would have migrated on their own.
Anyway, as a consumer I don't really care. I just want to be able to use my phone to surf the web. If Flash is available now so be it. Couldn't care less if it's laggy either. At least I can access the website. For example, nothing more annoying than going to a restaurant's site (and for some reason I come across lots of restaurant websites that use Flash) and not being able to check it out because Flash isn't available on my phone. I'll be happy when I can access any website I want on my phone and won't have to run to my Mac just to read a menu. If that's Flash today, then give me Flash on my phone. If that's HTML5, then give me that.
But if and when Flash is gone, I won't be crying tears for Adobe either....
As for the dogmatic stance of Apple. Good for them. And good on their users who are making the right choice for themselves. If they have the patience to put up with blue bricks, good on them. They're better people than me! I could care less about this standard and that standard. I just want a phone that works and let's me access the information I want, when I want. That's important to my user experience.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
A developer can only do what they are told to do, they can make recommendations, but the person paying the bill makes the decision, rightly, or wrongly.
Updates for Android exist for a good number of handsets... it just seems like it takes more than your average user to utilize them for the most part. To me it's akin to jailbreaking an iPhone. Only those people with the drive, confidence, and technical acumen to do it will do it.
As others have stated before, it's the ease of updating on the iPhone that sets it apart. Building a kernel from git repositories and rooting the phone to install is not something I would expect my mother to be able to do, but I think she can handle plugging in an iPhone and pressing the update button in iTunes. Perhaps some providers offer timely Android updates with streamlined upgrading, but I don't believe this is the norm. In addition, I don't know that you can upgrade an HTC SenseUI based OS to anything other than the vanilla Android distro unless the precompiled binary is made available.
That's only if the phone is rooted. In which case, you get the same hassles as having a jailbroken iPhone.
If you haven't rooted your Android, it's dead easy to update. Either you click okay when you get the updates available icon in the notification blind or you go through 4 clicks from the home screen:
settings > about phone > system updates .... and if there are any it tells you and asking you if you want to update. You click 'Install Now'.
And I am pretty sure with HTC phones you can turn the Sense UI on and off....though I've never had an HTC Sense UI device so don't quote me on that.....
I guess it's too much trouble for you to read what I actually wrote, so you have to make things up.
What I wrote was that updating was difficult or impossible. If the carriers don't provide an update as you're agreeing, doesn't that make it difficult or impossible to update the phone?
Sounds like you're simply proving I was right.
That's what you wrote in the NPD thread:
That's the way most of the junk out there 'works'. On paper, things work well. In the real world, they aren't worth anything. There was an article on this forum just a few days about about how few Android users ever bothered to upgrade their OS - because of the difficulty of tracking down the upgrades (due to fragmentation). Maybe it's supposed to work smoothly, but in the real world, it doesn't.
Except there's no 'tracking down' of updates in real life. You'd know that if you had actually touched an Android device once. You simply check for updates and install them if they are available. And when they do come out, Android notifies you. The only time you'd have go looking is if you somehow missed a notification (I dunno how that happens though).
You're right that fragmentation happens because carriers sometimes interfere with updates or the OEMs delay updates to work in their skins. I admitted that in the last thread. But again I take issue with 'hunting down' updates. You don't have to do that. You just wait and the update gets to you. Those folks who 'hunt' for updates are analogous to people who try and find beta builds of the latest iPhone OS. Would you consider them to be average iPhone users updating? Don't conflate some Android geeks experience with the average user.
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
Fair enough. But your original assertion was that there wasn't ANY devices mobile devices that could handle Flash. There are.
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n900-2917.php
The N900 has Flash. Not Flash Lite. Last I checked that was a full version of Flash. At least Adobe (you know the people who make Flash) say so. Now if you want to discuss how well it runs on there for things like video, I'll probably agree with you. But such pompous blanket statements (like saying, "As it is, there is not currently ANY mobile device that run a full version of Flash. None.") won't help your credibility.
More importantly, you're ignoring the entire issue to nitpick insignificant issues. All you Adobe shills are blaming Apple for not putting Flash on the iPhone. Yet both 9.4 and 10.1 require an A8 processor or higher - so there's absolutely no way Apple could have Flash on the iPhone. It's not Apple's fault, it's a simple fact that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices with less than an A8. (Actually, it remains to be seen whether it's suitable even for A8 devices, but that's a different story).
So we show you a phone that runs Flash and that makes us Android shills? If I tell you that that such and such phone has a built-in tip calculator, does that make me a tip calculator shill?
None of us brought up the issue of why Flash can or cannot run on the iPhone. So calm your Apple Defence Force instincts. I couldn't care less. That's Apple's call. It's their device. They can put whatever they want on there. I only care about the impact on me as a user. If it works for me, I stay. If it doesn't work for me, I can always vote with my wallet and buy a non-Apple phone. I actually find all whining about Apple and Flash useless and retarded. If you want Flash, ditch your iPhone and get something that does Flash.
Well I'll be finding another restaurant, preferably across the road, and when te restaurant owner looks over and sees his competitor full of people with iPhones, then maybe the penny will drop.
That he's wasting money on his website because it isn't performing it's intended purpose, i.e. attracting customers.
Any developer who doesn't give an alternative is not worth paying because they are not doing their job properly, the Internet is a "bums on seats" game you can't ignore whole sections of an intended audience.
Wow you must really hate Flash to pass on good restaurants just because they have a Flash website. Or do you just go use your laptop/desktop like everybody else, when you can't read the menu on your phone?
For me personally, I care about the food, not what web standard they are using for their website. That's how I decide on which restaurant to eat at. Well, to each his own I suppose. Some look at the menu. Some look at which graphics platforms are being used.
First, that would assume that Flash 9.4 is a 'full' version of Flash. Since it apparently can't even play Flash h264 videos (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/403/kb403400.html), I guess that's questionable.
what a selective, and some might say dishonest, bit of presentation. your statement clearly implies that flash 9.4 cannot play h264 video at all, which leads you to your conclusion that 9.4 is not a "full" version of flash.
This apparently is not the case at all.
Here is what the text you link says, and this is quoted from the Adobe website (i added the bold for emphasis)
[/QUOTE]Adobe Flash Player 9.4 release version 9.0.124.0, introduced an incompatibility with Flash Media Server 3.0 which affects H.264/AAC streams. Flash Player 9.4 will be unable to play back H.264/AAC content streamed from Flash Media Interactive Server 3 and Flash Media Streaming Server 3 over the RTMP, RTMPT and RTMPS protocols. This issue does not affect content streamed over the RTMPE and RTMPTE protocols regardless of the encoding format. Videos encoded using Sorenson Spark, On2, MP3, or Nelly Moser are not affected.[/QUOTE]
The text from Adobe says that there is an incompatibility between 9.4 and Media Server 3.
Flash 9.4 can play h264 videos streamed from other protocols.
1) Android marketplace is highly fragmented. Maybe Google and all the device manufacturers will eventually work this out, but as of today, it's fragmented. Updates are simple, when they're available, and that's the problem: lack of availability. Google patches a security hole and almost nobody gets it--except the bad guys, of course, because Android is open source.
2) Flash sucks. (I block Flash, and when it can't be blocked, I run from it).
3) Apple is in a tough spot, because everybody knows how hot its technology is.
4) HTC is in an even tougher spot, because their pre-iPhone technology looks ancient and, boy, has Apple patented the iPhone.
May I ask where you got your $7 billion figure from, as it differs somewhat from anything else I can find.
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/Summary...K&selected=NOK
Please cut the noise, you incredible droids you. The facts are:
1) Android marketplace is highly fragmented. Maybe Google and all the device manufacturers will eventually work this out, but as of today, it's fragmented. Updates are simple, when they're available, and that's the problem: lack of availability. Google patches a security hole and almost nobody gets it--except the bad guys, of course, because Android is open source.
2) Flash sucks. (I block Flash, and when it can't be blocked, I run from it).
3) Apple is in a tough spot, because everybody knows how hot its technology is.
4) HTC is in an even tougher spot, because their pre-iPhone technology looks ancient and, boy, has Apple patented the iPhone.
I own an iPhone, as well as multiple Mac computers. However, that does not excuse deceptive posting, where one implies that Flash is incapable of doing something, when that is not the case. The simple fact is, that jrgosta implied that Flash 9.4 was completely incapable of playing h264 videos, and that simply is not the case according to the Adobe document he linked in an attempt to prove that Flash was incapable of h264 video playback.
HTC has problems, but one does not lose one's patent simply because a newer technology comes along.