Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Accepts Flash For Windows Mobile

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the embrace-is-the-first-step dept.

Handhelds 90

Ian Lamont writes "Despite Microsoft's aim to take on Adobe Flash with Silverlight, the company has decided to support Flash on Windows Mobile devices. Microsoft has also licensed the Adobe Reader LE software, so owners of Windows Mobile devices will be able to view PDFs. The two companies are working together on integration and OEM distribution, but Microsoft is still mum on when consumers will be able to use Flash or Silverlight on their Windows Mobile phones. The article points out that Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and LG already support Flash, but only Nokia has announced Silverlight support, and only on some models starting later this year. The other major handset maker — Apple — doesn't support Flash on the iPhone and has no plans to do so in the near future."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1, Interesting)

Adaptux (1235736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787390)

What will it take to replace both Flash and Silverlight by a genuinely open standard (that has a Free Software implementation)?

Free implementations exist (5, Informative)

l2718 (514756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787468)

Flash [adobe.com] and Silverlight [microsoft.com] are fully documented, and there exists free implemenetations: Gnash [gnu.org] and Moonlight [mono-project.com] , respectively.

Re:Free implementations exist (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787536)

"Free Software" suggests there are no patent traps to be concerned about, and that's certainly not true with anything involving Mono.

The World's Most Unusable Browser (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787596)

Now burdened with Flash!

Gee. My phone ALREADY locks up, when browsing ("I TRIED to answer your call!), What'll YouTube do to it?

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787618)

No, it doesn't. The GPL (and all other "open" licenses) do nothing to grant you a patent license or to protect you from needing them. There is no assurance that some Joe's open source free software doesn't unknowingly infringe on someone else's patent.

Re:Free implementations exist (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787696)

The issue is that software patents stand against the ideals of Free Software. Stallman has long stood against software patents, and boycotted GIF and Amazon for years. Therefore, the implementation of Silverlight cannot be said to conform to the spirit of the Free Software movement. It's a free implementation, but it's not a Free one.

Re:Free implementations exist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787744)

Stallman has long stood against software patents, and boycotted GIF and Amazon for years.

How'd that work out?

Nothing more sad than a nerd who doesn't understand how insignificant he is.

Re:Free implementations exist (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788526)

I think there are lots of reasons to criticize Stallman, but one thing he has not been is insignificant.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787754)

His point, which is completely valid, is that Free software with a capital F doesn't automagically protect you from software patents. Which is 100% true. Stallman can do whatever he wants, but if Joe Coder releases a piece of Free Software that violates a software patent, the virtue that it's Free doesn't supercede the patent.

So in the end it doesn't matter. You can get screwed either way. Pick your poison.

Re:Free implementations exist (2, Informative)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787890)

I think the point here is more that in the case of things like Mono, they blatantly violate a known patent, and exist mostly by the permission of the patent holder. The risk of implementing anything on Mono (or similar patent encumbered software) is that at any time the patent holder can step in and throw a major wrench in your operations. With a truly "Free" implementation there is no known patent infringement, and even though there's always the chance it violates a patent held by someone somewhere the odds of that are significantly lower as it's essentially a given that the encumbered implementations do in fact violate patent.

RMS (1)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788392)

I think that software patents are bad as well; however, it's also stupid to say that they are bad because RMS said so.

There is a cult of personality built up around RMS, and there's nothing more frustrating than talking to someone who thinks that old hippy is some kind of "visionary" whose ever word is true. The guy wrote a port of emacs and some dogmatic diatribes on how he thinks software development should work, but people treat him like he is the Jesus of open source.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787684)

"Free Software" suggests there are no patent traps to be concerned about, and that's certainly not true with anything involving Mono.

Are you sure? I always thought that Mono was a completely independent implementation. At least that was what I was told at uni.

Re:Free implementations exist (4, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787922)

Are you sure? I always thought that Mono was a completely independent implementation. At least that was what I was told at uni.
Independently implemented != safe from patents. It just means it's safe from copyright and certain provisions of the DMCA. Until the idiocy of software patents is abolished doing any sort of development work on absolutely anything is the legal equivalent of running through a minefield.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787786)

I have yet to see gnash work, and I've got it installed in Debian, FBSD, and Vector Linux. I keep seeing references to it working, but not here... It's a darn shame. And silverlight/moonlight appears to be the solution to a nonexistent problem.

What about H264?

Re:Free implementations exist (2, Informative)

Adaptux (1235736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787826)

Flash and Silverlight are fully documented, and there exists free implemenetations: Gnash and Moonlight, respectively.

I tried Gnash recently, and the video that I tried to view simply didn't play.

In addition, Adobe does not allow the documentation for Flash to be used for making or improving a free software viewer.

Regarding Silverlight: yes, the docs appear to be not restricted in such a way, however that is not good enough. Who knows whether the documentation is complete? In addition, without formal standardization, nothing stops Microsoft from extending the format whenever they like and forcing free software implementations to play catch-up-if-you-can.

Furthermore, there is always the potential issue with patents, which means that it is never clear that something which looks like free software really is free software as long as whoever has developed the underlying design hasn't made a a clear patent non-assertion promise. This is particularly problematic with regard to Novell and the Mono project in general, and especially so with regard to Moonlight: It appears that Novell is depending on this non-free patent license from Microsoft [microsoft.com] in a way from which I can only conclude that Moonlight is not free software.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787858)

Are any of those implementations, free or not, really secure?
Or am I going to have to patch the software on my mobile too?

Re:Free implementations exist (2, Informative)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22793200)

Are any of those implementations, free or not, really secure?
Or am I going to have to patch the software on my mobile too?

Security has a number of dimensions. A heterogenous environment is more secure because a disease vector can spread less rapidly; and in a population with a dominant phenotype, disease vectors which attack that phenotype will be more successful and spread much more rapidly than ones which attack the recessive phenotype. Which is part of why there are fewer successful malware attacks on Linux than on Windows, on Firefox than on IE, but more on Apache than IIS. It's not (only) because Linux and Firefox are open; it also because they're subdominant. So if in future there's a serious malware attack on Flash, it's quite likely that Gnash will be immune, even if Gnash isn't, in and of itself, more secure than Flash.

That is, until it becomes dominant.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

street struttin' (1249972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788254)

there exists free implemenetations: Gnash and Moonlight, respectively.

Neither of those are fully implemented or even stable. They are NOT adequate replacements.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788412)

Didn't read the pages you linked to, did you?

From the Flash SDK page: "This license does not permit the usage of the specification to create software which supports SWF file playback." This is exactly why Flash is not actually documented or open.

Re:Free implementations exist (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22789024)

Maybe this is just me, but I'd like to see a totally independent open standard, similar to how Ogg Vorbis is an independent standard with compressed audio, or PNG is an independent format for displaying pictures.

This would have to take a lot of thought because it would be hard to get developers on board yet another Web standard, and a lot of man months would have to be put in to check every line of code for potential exploits. It would help having the reader either set its UID to nobody in UNIX, or in Windows spawning a child process with a process token of an untrusted user before parsing the incoming file. In either case, should a buffer overrun or similar actually occur, there is not much bad the software could do, unless there is some OS kernel level flaw to get back to root or SYSTEM without being able to invoke a program.

Another idea is to use an existing system that is widespread such as Java, and find some way of creating a mini JVM that would have a much abbreviated subset of classes, and would be optimized for use as a player. However, this would also take a lot of coding and adaptation of an existing standard, not to mention the time it would take to confirm there are no real glaring security weaknesses in both the framework and code.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787588)

Yeah, because design-by-committee always works out well. Which is why HTML is such a lovely useful standard!

Or not...

Hail Silverlight. Hopefully this means I'll never have to write another piece of HTML or Javascript ever again.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (2, Insightful)

DECS (891519) | more than 6 years ago | (#22789582)

Yes it would be so much better to replace HTML with something from the makers of the Win32 API.

Silverlight's attempts to kill Flash will work out about as well as MSN's original effort to replace AOL. By the time it can catch up, there won't be any contest left. The real solution is to improve the HTML spec to the point where we don't need proprietary add-ons. WHATWG and HTML 5 will go a long way in doing that.

H.264 doesn't need a Flash playing wrapper.

iPhone 2.0 SDK: How Signing Certificates Work [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22790650)

No, but I'm glad we have a way to use H.264 now, rather than waiting for web standards committees and implementors to get things ready. I'm a Flash developer, so call me biased, but I'm also a big fan of web standards. It's my belief that proprietary technologies are great for testing the waters with new and innovative ideas that can ultimately become part of the standards when they're proven useful.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22800900)

The real solution is to improve the HTML spec to the point where we don't need proprietary add-ons.
Yes and No to that.

Not needing proprietary add-ons like Flash and Silverlight is indeed a noble and desirable goal.

It's questionable however that an improved HTML spec. is the solution. HTML web-apps using AJAX/whatever techniques have serious limitations. HTML 5 looks like an improvement, and the new DOM interface APIs are a Good Thing, but it certainly doesn't make possible the kind of apps you can already create with Flash or Silverlight.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788416)

A Free Software implementation that is better for users than either Flash or Silverlight. Since they are already free for users, cost isn't a huge factor, and since(judging based on current behavior) users seem a lot more concerned about the value they perceive some software to provide than they care about "Freedom", the easiest(perhaps only) way to win is to be better.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

tc9 (674357) | more than 6 years ago | (#22793672)

We've got it in SVG. The problem is, most of the behaviors have never been impimented by anyone other than Adobe, who killed their implimentation after they bought Flash.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

Adaptux (1235736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22793932)

Sounds interesting - I wasn't aware that SVG defines enough functionality that it could serve as a genuinely open Flash/Silverlight competitor. Where can I find detailed information about this?

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

tc9 (674357) | more than 6 years ago | (#22797028)

SVG is a vector format allowing backgrounds/bitmaps to be hosted within any vecor in which all objects are fully DOM accessible, meaning the graphic elemetns can be programmed as are any page elements. This means that it is easul extensible using any of the AJAX techniques. There is also a whole suite of behaviors/movements that are defined in the specification.

One good place for this is the old Adobe SVG Community page

http://www.adobe.com/svg/community/external.html [adobe.com]

I have alway been fond of the WPS Real-Time control widgets.

dev.opera.com is another good source of articles

svg.org lists 169 SVG capable phones

I am hoping that SVG is in the winter of its discontent and a spring is coming. But part of me also fears that it is dead.

Re:Replace Flash/Silverlight by an open standard (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22795454)

There's already a free alternative well supported on mobile phones... SVG Tiny

What is needed there is a good free Authoring tool. The only one that is worth anything right now is Ikivo Animator... you can see a demo here [adobe.com]

InkScape is good for creating SVG artwork but it doesn't have a timeline or scripting support for animations or interactivity.

This is called out on an SVG compliance comment on their wiki [inkscape.org]

The other authoring tool mentioned there is Beatware but it has disappeared... possibly purchased by another company and all references pulled.

What do you expect? (2, Interesting)

l2718 (514756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787392)

Not implementing the industry standard while putting in their own competing product would have serious anti-trust implications.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

Freeside1 (1140901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787460)

That's exactly why one wouldn't expect it from Microsoft :P

Re:What do you expect? (0, Flamebait)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787920)

Anyone who's been following the misadventures of MS knows the pattern -- they fight to make their software a defacto standard, then break compatibility with everything non-MS as soon as they get there. It behooves the FOSS community to just say no to MS's crap.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22790994)

I love this quote [informationweek.com] from John Case, GM of Microsoft's developer division, commenting on Nokia agreeing to put Microsoft's Silverlight On Mobile Devices:

"We can't pretend to be a really ubiquitous play without being a partner with Nokia and Symbian"

Re:What do you expect? (2, Insightful)

twitchingbug (701187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787810)

in the mobile space? Are you saying that Microsoft has a monopoly there?

Here's a a smartphone chart by OS [roughlydrafted.com] that I found...

If you believe it Windows Mobile has 25% market share, which, in my mind, means that they don't have a monopoly and can implement almost anything they want to, because there are ... wait for it... CHOICES in the mobile OS arena.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

DavidApi (136128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22791902)

Not sure what your point is, or whether you're being sarcastic, but ...

If you're saying Apple has a proprietary format to compete with Flash, then what is it? QuickTime? Or AAC/MPEG-4? Flash seems to fit a different niche that those formats. Microsoft must be supporting Flash for the same reason. WMV is similar to AAC/MPEG-4 in that it's in a different niche than Flash.

I thought I read somewhere that Apple have decided against Flash for some purely functional reasons. Apple wouldn't deliberately cut themselves out of a popular format (hold on - they might!), but I'm sure they're not trying to simply piss customers off for the sake of it. Remember that Apple TV supports browsing YouTube (and so Flash) content. They obviously believe Flash doesn't have the right fit for the iPhone (or iPod Touch).

Flash on websites is generally a pain in the arse anyway. Who needs it on a smaller screen where real estate is so much more important.
 

Re:What do you expect? (1)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22795488)

YouTube is supported on the iPhone and Apple TV because Apple paid rather a lot of money to have YT transcode the Flash fiels into H264 files.

Mobile silverlight? (1)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787420)

I didn't think there was a version of silverlight for mobile devices? Perhaps I just missed it.

And the deal is for FlashLite, which supports a crappy / old set of API's and is only of use to people developing specifically for it. Getting the real flash player on phones would be a whole lot more useful, but it ain't the best performing application in embedded systems.

Re:Mobile silverlight? (2)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787594)

but it ain't the best performing application in embedded systems.

It ain't the best performing application on a full blown desktop.

I was hoping mobile devices would stay away from flash long enough to force web developers to provide non-flash required systems - so that all of us could choose to have flash on or off. Most sites shouldn't absolutely require flash just to navigate around.

Wooo, flash lite. See those adverts on your mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787430)

One rumour is that Adobe want Apple to switch to their PDF reader on the iPhone before they'll make Flash available.

Sensibly, Apple don't want to use Adobe's bloated reader application when they have their own fast reliable lightweight PDF reader already.

Flash Lite is also rather useless, there's not a lot of compatible content. I bet adverts are compatible however.

Re:Wooo, flash lite. See those adverts on your mob (2)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787780)

I take it you haven't used Adobe Reader LE on a mobile device. It is a fast, reliable, lightweight PDF reader, especially when you compare it to the competition (I'm looking at you, Clearvue).

Agreed on Flash though, doesn't work for crap.

Isn't PDF a standard? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787462)

Why don't they just port and support an open source pdf viewer or talk to the people behind foxit? I'll bet Adobe forced them to accept a bundle with Flash.

Listen up Mofos, I don't give a crap !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787474)



Listen up Mofos, I don't give a crap !! If I was stupid enuf to watch fucking flash on a stupid little phone, or god fucking damn, read a pdf? I'd sooner shoot the stupid fucking thing.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22788156)

Finally, a Slashdot comment worth reading.

I for one (3, Funny)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787482)

miss all those flash ads on my iPhone.

Re:I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22791838)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who considers Flash's absence from the iPhone a feature.

slhrqohO Iojhn NYNYYfe hfeh000(*UOy8yre jJJ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787532)

is p hufe&YY fnkklnnklI OOIJWIOJ frrf frfrfFRFRRFfrgf etbbgbGBbgfew j ;ojklJ:MK:JJ: j;:J:J:J;; fehihrwtfdsgvG GFCcfdwg poe YHIHHIO rfu mjnnNMM>?M?/m f eo O O O I IO iIOIoi rwllJHLHLHLHfsrfff papaya counsels

Re:slhrqohO Iojhn NYNYYfe hfeh000(*UOy8yre jJJ (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787636)

Indeed, you sir are thinking what all of us have been saying! Cheers!

Re:slhrqohO Iojhn NYNYYfe hfeh000(*UOy8yre jJJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22790582)

Consider taking the cock out of your mouth next time you post.

Re:slhrqohO Iojhn NYNYYfe hfeh000(*UOy8yre jJJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22791464)

You sir have missed the point of Slashdot entirely. CORNING indeed!

I've had flash and PDF for years now (4, Interesting)

Timothy Chu (2263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787538)

Hmmm...don't know why this is news:

Flash: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer_pocketpc/downloads/player.html [adobe.com]

PDF: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrppcdload.html [adobe.com]

I've had these installed since 2005.

Note that some flash videos like youtube videos, won't run in this implementation of Flash (so perhaps the article is referring to a version of Flash that *will* run streaming video). The widgets that web site designers tend to embed in their bloated websites do load for me with Windows Mobile 2003.

The "news" part of this may be that it's MS supporting this, not Adobe as it currently is, which may mean a better implementation.

Re:I've had flash and PDF for years now (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787718)

The headline is full of suck. It's not that MS is finally supporting flash or PDF, they're just shipping their OS with it already installed. Like you said it's been there for years, just as a separate download.

Re:I've had flash and PDF for years now (1)

e03179 (578506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787730)

From TFA: "so that Windows Mobile phone users can view Flash content in the Internet Explorer Mobile browser". Windows-based PocketPC != Windows-based Smartphone. Yeah, PocketPC's and Smartphones can both can run Windows Mobile but Smartphones haven't been able to run the Flash player you mentioned. This is great news for those that want Flash on a cellphone.

Re:I've had flash and PDF for years now (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787880)

I've been running Flashlite 2 on my Windows Mobile cellphone for months, the same version the GP linked.

Re:I've had flash and PDF for years now (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787898)

That's Flash 7, not Flash Lite 3 (which handles Flash 8 content).

Re:I've had flash and PDF for years now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22788044)

Isn't about time for Adobe to put out a 64-bit version of flash? Yes, I know there are various hacks/wrappers to get it running on a 64-bit linux (and yes, there's debate about why I would want to run a 64-bit OS) but c'mon - it's been years and there still isn't one.

corepirate nazi felons bailing each other out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787548)

at whose expense...? you guessed it? YOUR retirement/pension/social security/future. 'till debt do US part.... let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

wasn't this news yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22787646)

wasn't this news yesterday?

Flash sucks. (0, Troll)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787738)

I have an iPhone. I'm *GLAD* it doesnt support flash. Flash is used:

1. For entertainment/cartoons videos. Not terribly important to me.
2. To overcomplicate access to various types of media (mainly so its harder to directly download the media, which makes it impossible to save it an play it offline)
3. By incompetent "webmasterz" to make websites hard to use and look like shit, preventing any possibility of changing the font sizes or colors (becuase they are always incredibly tiny and fuzzy, and in horridly hard to read garish colors), or to copy/paste the text, and to make all the forms and controls as slow and as bloated as possible.

Re:Flash sucks. (3, Insightful)

VoltCurve (1248644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788356)

Yeah. I hate choices too. I'm glad the corporate masters decide for me what apps I should run on my device, and which are a waste of time (I mean, really, ENTERTAINMENT? fuck that).

Re:Flash sucks. (2)

Kenji DRE (1020807) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788634)

I have an iPhone. I'm *GLAD* it doesnt support flash. Flash is used:

1. For entertainment/cartoons videos. Not terribly important to me.
2. To overcomplicate access to various types of media (mainly so its harder to directly download the media, which makes it
impossible to save it an play it offline)
3. By incompetent "webmasterz" to make websites hard to use and look like shit, preventing any possibility of changing the font
sizes or colors (becuase they are always incredibly tiny and fuzzy, and in horridly hard to read garish colors), or to copy/paste the text, and to make all the forms and controls as slow and as bloated as possible.

Apple fans are quick to point out how they love it that their iphones don't support flash, because flash are mainly used for useless ads by stupid web developers.., etc.
How about apple website? They've used plenty to flash-based ads on their pages.

Re:Flash sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22788674)

Ok, so Windows Mobile is supposedly oriented to business users and iPhones to multimedia users. And you're telling me you're better off with no flash? iPhone is all about media/entertainment.

If you can open apple's page, then they are only supporting quicktime, which I think could be string base to sue them for anti-trust.

Re:Flash sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22789132)

I'm guessing you haven't taken a look at "newer" Flash sites developed with Adobe Flex?

Web word processor
http://www.buzzword.com/ [buzzword.com]

Social music network/player
http://www.anywhere.fm/ [anywhere.fm]

Be happy with your Iphone...I know I'm happier without one.

Re:Flash sucks. (1)

KingFatty (770719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22789524)

Uh, but it's nice to have flash for good sites like YouTube etc.

All the problems you mentioned seem to be caused by your poor choice of bad websites. Don't go to sites known for have "Webmasterz" or other crappy implementations.

Your "solution" of not having flash is like saying you can solve your problems by not using a graphical browser to avoid all those messy "JPGS" or "GIFS"

Reminds me of a sour grapes argument.

Re:Flash sucks. (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22790412)

Youtube works just fine on the iPhone. Think of bbc's player. Until the iPhone forced them to offer a nonflash nondrm version, there was no way to use their videos on anything but windows.

Flash is horrid. Sites that have chosen to make their information available or usable only if you have flash are horrid. Feel free to point out any site that uses flash that you think uses flash and doesnt suck in terms of usability.

The entire idea of websites being coded in compiled proprietary binary form is bad anyway. Thankfully, most websites that are are generally not worth visiting anyway.

Re:Flash sucks. (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22793950)

Feel free to point out any site that uses flash that you think uses flash and doesnt suck in terms of usability.
Homestar Runner [homestarrunner.com] would raise a hand to object, if he had any.

Re:Flash sucks. (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22809632)

Yes, I beleive I noted somewhere that 'entertainment' was about the only legitimate use of flash (Even disgusting moronic cartoons), and the unavailablity of those sites on nonflash platforms isn't really a big deal.

But, imagine /. redone so all navigation and comment viewing was in flash. If that ever happened, I can tell you I wouldnt bother reading the site anymore, nor would a lot of other current regular readers. I'd be pretty unhappy about it too. Of course, I think /. probably has more sense than to ever consider anything like that, so I'm not worried.

The iPhone is "major"? (1, Flamebait)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787798)

"The other major handset maker -- Apple -- doesn't support Flash on the iPhone and has no plans to do so in the near future." Since when did the tiny install base of a closed platform start competing with Windows Mobile, S60 or RIM? This is just stupid. The iPhone will never be a major player for businesses as long as Emperor Jobs keeps the platform locked down. It can't even multitask.

Re:The iPhone is "major"? (1)

pohl (872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788370)

It can multitask. Several built-in applications do already. What you mean to point out is that the SDK does not currently expose an API for you to write an app that does things in the background.

iPhone don't need no steenken Flash (5, Funny)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787828)

The other major handset maker -- Apple -- doesn't support Flash on the iPhone and has no plans to do so in the near future.

That's because everyone will switch to Quicktime! Oh yes! It's catching on like wildfire.

Re:iPhone don't need no steenken Flash (2, Funny)

Nitemare14 (1256834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788428)

It's catching on like wildfire.
If it's catching on like wildfire, then someone needs to put it out, and fast.

Re:iPhone don't need no steenken Flash (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22793582)

You mean like if Youtube videos got transcoded in H.264, or something like that?

No Flash means less revenue for publishers (1)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787838)

The other major handset maker -- Apple -- doesn't support Flash on the iPhone and has no plans to do so in the near future.
I think this is a real problem for iPhone owners. Most iPhone owners love their Safari browser - yet they are denied all Flash content on the iPhone.

Remember that funny "get a Mac" web ad that has the PC on the ladder, attempting to repair the broken Vista signage? That was a Flash-based ad. And millions of iPhone users couldn't even see it. Or hear it.

Without Flash support, many web sites lose important advertising revenue. The lack of Flash support is a true shame, taking power away from customers who have repeatedly asked for this powerful technology. Flash has turned the web into a true capitalist marketplace. Now Apple is stripping the web of the one thing that makes it so great.

In Sarcasm,
LanceJ

Why not? (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787856)

It certainly wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to not include it (short of any technical reasons, that is). If Microsoft didn't include it, they certainly wouldn't see more sales. (Depending... some people are quite against flash -- but in a lot of cases those same people are also against Microsoft). Silverlight is similar, but of a much different flavour. In all honesty (to me), it seems as though they just decided one day "Lets try to dip into this market and see where it takes us." I don't seem to see any real force on Microsoft's part to have it completely obsolete Flash (but then again that could just be the AdBlock addon).

Since when does Microsoft have a say? (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22787982)

If people want it on there it's going on weather Micro$oft likes it or not. Just like with apple's iPhone

Platforms supported by Flash Player and Flash Lite (1)

this great guy (922511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788162)

I keep hearing contradictory claims about the platforms supported or not supported by Flash Player or Flash Lite... Adobe's website is uninformative. Even their wikipedia articles are imprecise. AFAIK:

  • Flash Player [wikipedia.org] , which is the regular browser plugin, is currently (version 9) only available for the i386 architecture ( this flash developer [kaourantin.net] claims the JIT compiler in the Flash VM is delaying the port to x86-64). Older versions (7 or earlier ?) used to be available for the PPC arch for Mac OS, but PPC support was dropped approximately when Adobe acquired Macromedia.
  • Flash Lite [wikipedia.org] is a lightweight version of Flash Player that runs as a standalone app (as opposed to a browser plugin) and is available on various smartphone platforms: ARM, MIPS (I think ?). It is very unclear what features are supported by Flash Lite exactly (video ? action script 3 ?).

Could someone knowledgeable clarify ?

Re:Platforms supported by Flash Player and Flash L (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788888)

I have Flash Lite on my phone. I don't think it supports video.

For Windows Mobile phones, it's standard to use TCPMP [wikipedia.org] to play video, since it supports a huge number of codecs.

Re:Platforms supported by Flash Player and Flash L (1)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 6 years ago | (#22792428)

Flash Player--up to version 9--still supports Mac OS X on PPC. There is/was a full Flash player (v7) for Windows Mobile. It was bad.

Flash Lite 2.0 doesn't support video and is more or less compatible with ActionScript as implemented in Flash 7. Flash Lite 3.0 is very new and does support video and parts of Flash 8's ActionScript. It works on S60/Symbian, BREW and WM5. I don't know what processor architectures it supports. It will run in a browser on WM5/6, but the experience is really unpleasant (though, really, this is WM, so unpleasant is de rigueur.)

I suspect Apple isn't including/adding/supporting Flash or Flash Lite on the iPhone is precisely the reason above: it really does suck. Apple would rather have a clean, if lobotomized, platform, then a interoperability clusterfuck that it Symbian or Windows Mobile.

Who cares...Google phone FTW!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22788210)

I have a Windows Mobile phone right now (T-Mobile Dash a.k.a. HTC Excalibur) and I can't wait for some sweet Android based mobile phones to come out!!!

What do they really mean by "Windows Mobile?" (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788434)

I've witnessed the confusing litany of name changes and double switches that has occurred with Windows Mobile. It's gone from Windows CE to The OS Formerly Known as Windows CE, to Windows Pocket PC: Pocket Edition for Pockets to, I think, encompass any device with a touch screen that now runs Windows Mobile 5/6. And would I be correct to assume that still excludes "smartphones?"

Re:What do they really mean by "Windows Mobile?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22796038)

This is a common misunderstanding. Windows CE is, and always has been, the embedded operating system; vendors purchase Platform Builder and licenses to create ROM images for any type of device. It is currently available at version 6.0. With Platform Builder, you can create ROM images for all sorts of devices - not just handhelds. You also create an SDK for your ROM image, allowing you to write software that uses the libraries you have picked and licensed for your device.

Pocket PC was the trade name for a subset of devices that had certain characteristics (screen size, touchscreen, IrDA, etc), a common set of libraries, a common user interface customized for PDAs, and that could use a common SDK. This made life for developers easier because they could download the common SDK, use the free "eMbedded Visual C++" to write their app, and trust that it would run on all Pocket PC's. Pocket PC phone edition was pretty much the same as a Pocket PC, with additional libraries and hardware to access a cellphone.

Windows Powered Smartphone was a different subset of devices, that had different characteristics (smaller screen size, no touchscreen, etc), a different common set of libraries, and a different common user interface customized for a phone, and that used a different common SDK.

There have been other trade names used for other subsets of devices: Handheld PC was a device with a half-VGA screen and a keyboard. Handheld PC/Pro was a device with a full-VGA screen and a keyboard (I loved my WorkPad z50!)

Somewhere in between version 5.0 of Windows CE and version 6.0, the Pocket PC trade name stopped being used and they started calling it Windows Mobile. Also, for a while there with version 4.0 - 4.2 they called it Windows CE.Net - just like everything else Microsoft produced during that period was called ".Net".

So there you have it - a brief history of Windows CE.

What's interesting now is that starting with version 5, Microsoft abandoned the free set of developer tools (eMbedded Visual C++) for Windows CE. Now, you have to buy Visual Studio and an embedded toolkit. I guess they decided that they've reached a critical mass of developers and don't have to give away the tools anymore.

The other-other builder (1)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788842)

Palm shows no signs of having Flash on their phones either AFAIK. Which bums me out kind of, but since they work with YouTube in a similar fashion to iPhones, it's not as bad as I guess it could be.

The spinning wheel of death (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22788958)

I guess Microsoft felt left out of the Apple party and wanted a spinning beach ball/wheel of death for Windows Mobile.

Flash is guaranteed to bring a windows mobile device to its knees.

-ted

Re:The spinning wheel of death (1)

DanJ_UK (980165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22791646)

Or any mobile device for that matter.

Re:The spinning wheel of death (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22795634)

It's funny because it's true.

I just ported our administrative database generator application from Windows Mobile to the desktop. It used to take 1 to 4 hours on the handheld device... it takes less than 30 seconds on the desktop. (It was originally a Pocket PC app because there wasn't a way to use SQL Mobile from desktop applications.)

Well, good. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22790034)

The other major handset maker -- Apple -- doesn't support Flash on the iPhone and has no plans to do so in the near future.

Sometimes I think there's hope for Apple after all.

Too HORRIBLE To Comprehend (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22790216)

Microsoft is still mum

I just had a horrific vision of me as schoolkid with Bill Gates stood by my front door in a padded dressing gown, giving me a peck on the cheek, putting my schoolcap on my head and saying "Bye, dear, have a nice day at school!"

And Steve Ballmer as my dad waiting in his car by the school gates as I climb into the passenger seat after a hard day at school. And as he turns the key in the ignition, he looks at me and says:

"Son, I think our holiday photos are ready so on the way home I'm going to make a quick stop at the DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS", bouncing up and down in his seat with spittle coming out of his mouth and bashing his bald head against inside of the vinyl upholstered roof of the car...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

flash mobile & iphone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22790952)

for all the knocking that microsoft takes, at least they can make a machine that is able to surf the internet properly.

it just makes me laugh that even though your toy-making godhead is turning from computers to something he can do a lot better (i.e. portable jukeboxes & phones) he can't even seem to get that right - where's the high speed internet? where's the flash plugin? where's the keyboard?

talk about selling crap to idiots! you could hardly make it up!

this Is goatseEx (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22791668)

ransom for their prima doonas to Project faces a set

What it's really about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22791728)

Rather simple, yes it's been available for years; but this is Microsoft's way of saying "Hey look, our phones are able to run Flash... now they will by default, what's up Steve, is your phone a pussy?". The browser as of Windows Mobile 6 is a big improvement in terms browser speed/support (And this is the 3rd Windows Mobile phone I've had with a new OS) so it's not an unreasonable thing. The phone will pick up while browsing and while Windows Media player is playing music at the same time without a problem. The main problem in this area is usually vendors who spend too little time on their Windows Mobile software stack before releasing.

But the big thing is that it's been easy to develop for (+free) and deploy software on to the Windows Mobile phone for a while now. The support for .NET, Java (with a JVM) or Native development gives Microsoft a huge head-start advantage on things like Flash support. If Microsoft ever pulls their head out and gets behind their product and forces a tighter vendor certification for handset providers then it will be the best mobile platform out there.

Also, I'll add, Silverlight isn't there to take on Flash. Silverlight is there to get rid of the abomination which is AJAX.

I hope the vendors have a say..... (1)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 6 years ago | (#22792468)

Yeah, just what my Moto Q9c needs - it's sluggish enough with EVDO Rev 0 with a rather friendly implementation of IE to boot....

Until handset vendors can get an ARM processor or equivelent that has some real horsepower and a memory footprint to support it, I'll leave the Flash on my desktop....or not.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?