Absolutely. Seriously, are there any phones out there running the *full* specification of Flash? Most folks haven't a clue that Flash Lite even exists, so when they hear 'Flash on phone' they assume a full version.
So the options at this point in time seem to be:
1) No Flash - cons: no Flash-wrapped video, no Flash games; pros: no damnedable Flash ads.
2) Flash Lite - cons: may or may not work with random Flash found on web, resource hog; pros: well at least you get *some* Flash content
3) Full Flash - cons: may in fact not exist on phones, HUGE resource hog, exceeds resource capabilities of most handheld devices; pros: access to everything
So the way I see it - given that Flash video is just another wrapper around established codecs, this is pretty silly. Just use the damned codec files outside of the Flash wrapper. Phones can use these, everyone wins.
For Flash games... eh, I can live without them on my phone.
For the rest... I can usually wait to get back to a desktop machine to let its CPU get pegged instead of draining my phone battery like a suction pump.
Unfortunately, Adobe wants Flash to be the end-all/be-all interaction format. :P
Unfortunately, Adobe wants Flash to be the end-all/be-all interaction format. :P
And this is probably the #1 reason that even if it is technically feasible, Apple should not rush to make either Flash or Silverlight available on the iPhone. Both only play well with others because they have to, but in the long term they don't ever want you to leave their sandboxes. Whence the crack about running Flash as an operating system: Might as well, as far as Adobe is concerned.
On another thread, there's some concern that HTML/CSS can't keep up with Flash. No, of course not. Standards move slowly, and that's a feature. As long as Flash and Silverlight are effectively gadflies struggling for audience, they'll innovate like crazy, but not long after either one managed to replace the standard Web (hypothetically speaking) they would atrophy quickly. The behavior of monopolies is so blandly predictable that the particular history or culture of the company pre-monopoly hardly even matters.
In the mean time, the pragmatic counterargument is that mobile hardware will actually be able to keep pace with HTML5, which is more than you can say for Flash.
I have to say to those who are demanding Flash on the iPhone, that I have two questions:
1) Are you willing to have an extremely slow implementation of full Flash, or would you settle for a somewhat decent implementation of just a subset of Flash, where you don't know if any given piece of Flash you find will work? Those are your only two options, until Adobe *drastically* improves it's coding ability. (Try working with web pages with embedded Flash on an older Mac - say, 800MHz CPU and about 256MB of RAM - a) the virtual memory thrashes like mad, and b) the CPU pegs high very quickly. Those are about the resources you have on even a top end smartphone.)
2) Do you think it is in everyone's best interest to adopt open standards for media such as H.264, AAC, MP3, and so on, or do you think that proprietary wrappers are better for the consumer? Do you think that open standards such as HTML5, JavaScript, etc are what push access to web content, or do you think Flash, Silverlight, and other closed environments provide a better market?
I'm firmly in the open standards camp on this one. And when the proprietary alternative also takes more resources than the open standards... I just don't see the point. I deal with Flash on the web because I have to, not because I want to. By default I use ClickToFlash to keep it off until I request it.
Addressing Amorph's innovation rate comment: to my mind, the baseline access method to data on the web should be absolutely open standards based. They may not change as rapidly to accommodate the latest sparkly widget, but they are predictable and understood. That's what you build a foundation on.
Comments
So the options at this point in time seem to be:
1) No Flash - cons: no Flash-wrapped video, no Flash games; pros: no damnedable Flash ads.
2) Flash Lite - cons: may or may not work with random Flash found on web, resource hog; pros: well at least you get *some* Flash content
3) Full Flash - cons: may in fact not exist on phones, HUGE resource hog, exceeds resource capabilities of most handheld devices; pros: access to everything
So the way I see it - given that Flash video is just another wrapper around established codecs, this is pretty silly. Just use the damned codec files outside of the Flash wrapper. Phones can use these, everyone wins.
For Flash games... eh, I can live without them on my phone.
For the rest... I can usually wait to get back to a desktop machine to let its CPU get pegged instead of draining my phone battery like a suction pump.
Unfortunately, Adobe wants Flash to be the end-all/be-all interaction format. :P
Unfortunately, Adobe wants Flash to be the end-all/be-all interaction format. :P
And this is probably the #1 reason that even if it is technically feasible, Apple should not rush to make either Flash or Silverlight available on the iPhone. Both only play well with others because they have to, but in the long term they don't ever want you to leave their sandboxes. Whence the crack about running Flash as an operating system: Might as well, as far as Adobe is concerned.
On another thread, there's some concern that HTML/CSS can't keep up with Flash. No, of course not. Standards move slowly, and that's a feature. As long as Flash and Silverlight are effectively gadflies struggling for audience, they'll innovate like crazy, but not long after either one managed to replace the standard Web (hypothetically speaking) they would atrophy quickly. The behavior of monopolies is so blandly predictable that the particular history or culture of the company pre-monopoly hardly even matters.
In the mean time, the pragmatic counterargument is that mobile hardware will actually be able to keep pace with HTML5, which is more than you can say for Flash.
I have to say to those who are demanding Flash on the iPhone, that I have two questions:
1) Are you willing to have an extremely slow implementation of full Flash, or would you settle for a somewhat decent implementation of just a subset of Flash, where you don't know if any given piece of Flash you find will work? Those are your only two options, until Adobe *drastically* improves it's coding ability. (Try working with web pages with embedded Flash on an older Mac - say, 800MHz CPU and about 256MB of RAM - a) the virtual memory thrashes like mad, and b) the CPU pegs high very quickly. Those are about the resources you have on even a top end smartphone.)
2) Do you think it is in everyone's best interest to adopt open standards for media such as H.264, AAC, MP3, and so on, or do you think that proprietary wrappers are better for the consumer? Do you think that open standards such as HTML5, JavaScript, etc are what push access to web content, or do you think Flash, Silverlight, and other closed environments provide a better market?
I'm firmly in the open standards camp on this one. And when the proprietary alternative also takes more resources than the open standards... I just don't see the point. I deal with Flash on the web because I have to, not because I want to. By default I use ClickToFlash to keep it off until I request it.
Addressing Amorph's innovation rate comment: to my mind, the baseline access method to data on the web should be absolutely open standards based. They may not change as rapidly to accommodate the latest sparkly widget, but they are predictable and understood. That's what you build a foundation on.
a quick google dug up complaints about the LGs POOR RECEPTION.
now do they cancel "goat" out?
and isnt it sad that its better than my old iPhone
laters...