Motorola Xoom Won't Have Flash Support At Launch

I think... by wiggles · 2011-02-21 07:21 · Score: 2, Funny

the Xoom is going to Xuck. I'll keep my Nook.

Re:I think... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:28 · Score: 0

Enjoy the subpar performance and non-honeycomb interface...
Re:I think... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-21 07:33 · Score: 2

Xoom, Flash, all these 'fast' names ... I'd like something slower please. Can I have a nice product called 'Savor'?
Re:I think... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:47 · Score: 0

Fuck that, I want a tablet called the "Jesus."
Re:I think... by wiggles · 2011-02-21 07:49 · Score: 2

Honeycomb isn't worth the extra $1000+cellular plan the Xoom will cost, and my nook performs just fine.
Re:I think... by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2011-02-21 08:03 · Score: 1

Xoom, Flash, all these 'fast' names
I wasn't aware "Exhume" was a fast word. If you ask me, they're more dirty than fast.
Yet another product name that didn't pass the teenager giggle test before it was decided on.
Re:I think... by FunkyELF · 2011-02-21 08:11 · Score: 1

I'll wait for a couple of Honeycomb tablets to come out before I buy one, but if I were to get the Xoom I'd go WiFi only and just tether it to a rooted android phone.
Re:I think... by Gilmoure · 2011-02-21 08:24 · Score: 1

Odin!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:I think... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:28 · Score: 0

Clearly you've never worked for a necromancer.
Exhume this, exhume that, like I have time for digging up all these bodies!
Re:I think... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-21 08:45 · Score: 1

Honeycomb isn't worth the extra $1000+cellular plan the Xoom will cost, and my nook performs just fine.
That right there is what you call "Insightful".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:I think... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-02-21 09:25 · Score: 2

The claim so far has been that you need to sign up for 1 month of Verizon service, and can terminate it afterwards. It's still annoying, but it's not a "$1k plan".
Re:I think... by DrXym · 2011-02-21 09:38 · Score: 1

Enjoy the subpar performance and non-honeycomb interface...
You don't need to spend $800 to get performance which would be entirely adequate for watching videos, browsing, reading books. An Archos 101 satisfies the things most people need from a tablet for a price which is 3/5 of an iPad. The Nook is cheaper again. I would hope that there will be android 3.0 tablets with beef up specs hitting those price points before the year is out.
There is no avoiding that the Xoom is way too expensive. It makes the overpriced iPad look like a bargain. Perhaps it's all a cunning plan to make the price under contract look like a bargain. I wouldn't rule that out.
Re:I think... by Sparks23 · 2011-02-21 09:50 · Score: 1

The real problem I have with the Xoom is that you have to sign up for the cellular data plan in order for the tablet to enable WiFi. No Verizon data plan? No WiFi for you, either. Sure, you can cancel after the WiFi's been activated, with a minimum of one month data service... but still, that's just outright extortion. And there's no release date on the WiFi-only Xoom yet, so it's the cellular-enabled Xoom or nothing.

--
--Rachel
Re:I think... by DrEasy · 2011-02-21 10:09 · Score: 1

I don't think a teenager today would know what "exhume" means.

--
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
Re:I think... by gandhi_2 · 2011-02-21 10:25 · Score: 2

this is like an alternative historical fiction... we get to see what the personal computer revolution would have looked like if telecoms drove it, rather than computer makers, hobbiests, small pc building companies, and end users.
sad that consumers are getting so used to the carriers driving what computers they buy know.

--
THL phish sticks
Re:I think... by exomondo · 2011-02-21 10:40 · Score: 1

The real problem I have with the Xoom is that you have to sign up for the cellular data plan in order for the tablet to enable WiFi. No Verizon data plan? No WiFi for you, either. Sure, you can cancel after the WiFi's been activated, with a minimum of one month data service... but still, that's just outright extortion. And there's no release date on the WiFi-only Xoom yet, so it's the cellular-enabled Xoom or nothing.
Looks like it'll be a US-only thing, same as with the iphone. The rest of the world should be just fine.
Re:I think... by RocketRabbit · 2011-02-21 11:09 · Score: 1

It's pronounced "exhume."
Re:I think... by Enderandrew · 2011-02-21 12:36 · Score: 1

There isn't a firm release date for the Wifi one, but we only learned a hard date for the 3G/4G model until about a week before it ships. All the pundits have been saying the wifi model will ship in March or April at the latest. It won't require a dataplan. If you're opposed to paying for 3G data, then why pay $200 more for the 3G model?
Just wait a frickin' month.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.

Silly Motorolla! by Thud457 · 2011-02-21 07:23 · Score: 1

Only Apple can get away with a move like that!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Silly Motorolla! by inpher · 2011-02-21 07:27 · Score: 1

Android seemed to be doing alright without flash also, about 60% of android handsets run 2.2 or later.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Desler · 2011-02-21 07:28 · Score: 1

Those 60% running 2.2 HAVE Flash.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by inpher · 2011-02-21 07:36 · Score: 1

Point one is: It just reached 60%.
Point two is: Up until recently less than half of all Android handsets did not have Flash.
Point three is: Android did well without Flash.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Altus · 2011-02-21 07:44 · Score: 0

Given the number of times flash has crashed in chrome on my desktop in the past week, I really don't see myself holding my breath for a stable release of flash on Android. Sure, at least flash doesn't take down the whole browser with it but it seems to crash more often than it did in FireFox and that sucked enough as it was.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:Silly Motorolla! by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 07:46 · Score: 1

Maybe Motorola is doing the right thing. From what I've heard Flash on Android hasn't been ideal. I've never used it but if I were to guess, Motorola may be waiting for Adobe to fix/correct/optimize something first.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by rrossman2 · 2011-02-21 07:54 · Score: 2

Haven't had an issue with flash on android yet. The only issue is I loaded up kitty cannon but couldn't play since it uses keys and doesn't work with a touch screen
Re:Silly Motorolla! by davester666 · 2011-02-21 07:55 · Score: 1

Point 4: All Flash content had/has to be redone to support 'mobile' Flash. All the video had to be re-encoded AND all the UI has to be fixed to work with mobile touch support.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Gilmoure · 2011-02-21 08:25 · Score: 0

Why is Apple protecting people from this?!!!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Silly Motorolla! by peragrin · 2011-02-21 08:35 · Score: 1

Flash can't handle scroll wheels yet. how long do you think it will take them to get touch screen support?

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:46 · Score: 0

No, probably Motorola is waiting for the test results from Adobe for their Xoom optimized Flash.
Perhaps the current Flash in the Market is not compatible with Honeycomb and the new Flash for Honeycomb needs to go through the Adobe red tape.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by assassinator42 · 2011-02-21 12:24 · Score: 1

Not all 2.2 phones support Flash (mine doesn't as I didn't want to pay $70/month for service). :(
Re:Silly Motorolla! by mrrudge · 2011-02-21 12:37 · Score: 1

IIRC, Flash has been able to handle scroll wheels since player 6. ( About 2002 )
Re:Silly Motorolla! by biovoid · 2011-02-21 14:42 · Score: 2

Flash can't handle scroll wheels yet. how long do you think it will take them to get touch screen support?
About 18 months ago:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/TouchEvent.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/GestureEvent.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/AccelerometerEvent.html
And about 8 years ago:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/MouseEvent.html#MOUSE_WHEEL
Re:Silly Motorolla! by peragrin · 2011-02-21 15:02 · Score: 1

name one flash application that supports them?
I don't care if it is in the api if not a single developer uses it. There are literally thousands of flash items that could use it but no one codes for a simple scroll wheel that every mouse has.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Luckyo · 2011-02-21 15:23 · Score: 1

Pretty much all games where scrolling would be relevant (like scrolling text for quest info etc) for example. There are quite a few where developer is lazy and doesn't add it, but most do nowadays.
Re:Silly Motorolla! by Gilmoure · 2011-02-22 03:52 · Score: 1

Motorola's just using their power over their customers 'cause they're teh evil.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

But that's good right? by Desler · 2011-02-21 07:23 · Score: 2

But that's good right? Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told? If so, why is this bad news?

Re:But that's good right? by thestudio_bob · 2011-02-21 07:33 · Score: 0, Troll

But that's good right? Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told? If so, why is this bad news?
It's only bad news for all of the Flash zealots who have been crying and whining about how Apple is evil and Adobe is being treated so poorly. Apparently there is some truth to what Job's said about Flash. Not sure if all of the Flash developers can handle it. Remember, first comes denial, then frustration, anger follows and finally acceptance.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:But that's good right? by monkyyy · 2011-02-21 08:01 · Score: 0

you missed depression( or if u were quoting someone they did)

--
warning pointless sig
Re:But that's good right? by Merk42 · 2011-02-21 08:19 · Score: 1

Bargaining too. Also there's no Frustration, it's just in there with Anger.
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
Re:But that's good right? by XxtraLarGe · 2011-02-21 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

But that's good right? Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told? If so, why is this bad news?
It's not bad news. You apparently didn't get the Slashdot memo:
No Flash on iPad = vice
No Flash on Android = virtue

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:But that's good right? by dclozier · 2011-02-21 08:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told?
That's incorrect - Flash is very efficient at draining batteries. ;)
Re:But that's good right? by thestudio_bob · 2011-02-21 09:02 · Score: 1

I should have added "Mod the truth as Flamebait" in there as well.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:But that's good right? by PitaBred · 2011-02-21 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Flash on Android is a choice. It's not on the iPad.
The correct slashdot memo is:
Choice = good
No choice = bad

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:But that's good right? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 10:49 · Score: 0

While I get the joke, it's no longer a battery drain. The Flash performance on my Droid X is also significantly better now than it was when first launched. Flash videos/functions on websites play without delay with full control available.
Re:But that's good right? by Sancho · 2011-02-21 11:14 · Score: 1

On the other hand, the more devices out there that are incapable of running Flash, the more likely Flash falls out of fashion. I'm all for that, frankly.
Re:But that's good right? by mattack2 · 2011-02-21 11:18 · Score: 1

Yes, and people are continuing to _choose_ a device that they know won't run Flash.
(I find it very funny that this new device won't have Flash at launch, and Windows Mobile won't have copy/paste, two things that people hugely mocked iOS about at certain times.. Why aren't these competitors making sure they have these alleged huge superiorities fixed at launch??)
Re:But that's good right? by reboot246 · 2011-02-21 12:19 · Score: 1

That's basically my thought on the matter, too. the sooner flash disappears, the better. It's an abomination and never should have been allowed on the web.
Re:But that's good right? by mrrudge · 2011-02-21 13:55 · Score: 1

Or, the only things which run well on small underpowered devices are things written natively for them. html/js has awful performance across mobile devices if you're doing anything more than laying out a simple page, and maxing the tiny processor drains the battery quickly whatever.

Flash is write once - deploy nearly anywhere, it doesn't match the speed or economy of a native app. html/js is not really production ready unless you can exclude anything but the latest browsers from requirements ( hard as some of them are still unreleased ). If you want multimedia deployable across mobile/internet/ie
html = 1 x development costs. Flash = 1x dev costs. iOS app = 1 x dev costs. Android app = at least 3 x dev costs ( major platforms ).

Flash developers are upset about Mr Jobs' statement as it confuses their clients and badly affects their businesses. iOS is minority platform that now drastically limits the approaches available for building websites. I don't enjoy telling my clients that they can have the shiny they now expect, or they can have it working on their iPad. The only option for 1xdev cost is html/js. The only reason for this is iOS.

Between this and WebM/h264 it's a very badly managed transition stage for web based development, most of the technology being used is unfinished, against an unratified standard, with all kinds of parties attempting to 'own' parts of it. I understand and agree with the need for standardisation, but currently html/js + WebM is a large step back ( about five years ) in tecniques I can use, and quality of product I can produce.

Thanks for the thought and understanding you've obviously put into this. I'll drop Flash happily as soon as there's a suitable replacement technology.
Re:But that's good right? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 14:25 · Score: 0

iDevices ship without Flash support because $teve Job$ is a dick nazi fascist evil freedom-hating douche who wants to tell you exactly what you can and can't run, and you have to jailbreak the device which is a joke.
Android devices ship without Flash support because Google is great and loves freedom and gives you the freedom to root your device and install your own Flash player that you write from scratch.
Re:But that's good right? by index0 · 2011-02-21 15:42 · Score: 1

The headline says no flash at launch, not no flash EVER.
Re:But that's good right? by Clsid · 2011-02-21 16:11 · Score: 1

Apple just didn't like the fact that Flash was charging them a premium to use their plugin, plus the fact that Flash could be used to bypass their business model with the App Store. I don't see it as a vice per se, it was just a business decision by Apple, then we got "informed" of it by some crazy Steve Jobs stunt, and then it was business as usual in the Apple world. Nobody should support Flash because your web access shouldn't be restricted by any company, call it Microsoft, Adobe or Apple. By having this model where they charge certain people or business for the viewer plugin they are breaking that innocent view of "oh, we just charge for the content generation". Besides, Flash only adds video and vector graphics, and breaks web browsing in the process since you can't select text, create application that scan text from a site and just requires a fast cpu to display properly. Vector graphics was a novelty the first time I saw it but I see it more as a gimmick than a real feature, and web video is where Flash really shines, and then again, we all should be using a standard for that, or at the very least have options like we had with RealPlayer, Windows Media and Quicktime. Java was perfectly positioned to solve the web video issue, but for some reason it didn't catch up.
Re:But that's good right? by monkyyy · 2011-02-21 17:45 · Score: 0

but bargaining doesnt really fit

--
warning pointless sig
Re:But that's good right? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 21:23 · Score: 0

So Flash drains batteries while it's not runnning? Wow this is amazing. And all this time my phone is telling me that the display is 99% responsible for draining my battery and the cell is the remaining 1%.
If flash was the least efficient thing on the phone and constantly used 100% I would still install it. Why? Because i couldn't fucking care less if for the 5min while looking at a youtube video or for the 10min I'm surfing a flash heavy website it's hammering my phone's battery. It won't even register on the grand scheme of things.
A lot of people are just blind to this fact. They will happily eat up King Job's bullshit about multitasking and flash destroying batteries, well you know what, I have multitasking and flash on my phone and the battery life is comparable if not better than my father's iPhone 4. In other news games use up a lot of CPU that makes them bad. Reading email uses a lot of bandwidth that makes them bad. Don't get me started on screens. Why the hell would a mobile phone ship with a screen that has the potential to slowly drain the battery over a period of hours. OMGOMGOMG It's horrible. The world will end.
God the majority of the people on slashdot have their heads up their arse, it's incredible. One day people will do psych studies on Apple followers, and I bet they all get their periods at the same time too.
Re:But that's good right? by John+Betonschaar · 2011-02-21 22:08 · Score: 1

Flash video: yes. Flash animation: no.
The whole point of the anti-Flash thing is that no-one should _need_ a Flash plugin just to wrap a video stream in a container, on a device that can play video just fine without said plugin. That includes Android. Flash games and animations will always be inefficient and clumsy compared to native implementations. I can understand Flash developers go crazy if they can't use their favorite development environment, but I've never understood why some end-users have come to think that more Flash content is a good thing for them. The sooner Flash dies, the sooner everyone will have more native applications that perform better than the heaps of 'write-once, deploy everywhere' crap that Flash is used for 9 out of 10 times.
Re:But that's good right? by dunkelfalke · 2011-02-21 22:09 · Score: 1

Windows Mobile had copy&paste from day 1. It is Windows Phone that is castrated.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:But that's good right? by AdrianKemp · 2011-02-22 03:30 · Score: 1

The only reason for this is iOS.
No, the only reason for this is Adobe. Google was practically begging for flash support in Android to help set it apart from iOS and it still took 2.2 versions before it arrived (and it's still not very good, a site with more than one object slows down even powerhouse devices).
Don't blame Adobe's incompetence on Apple, Jobs, or iOS.
Re:But that's good right? by Gilmoure · 2011-02-22 03:55 · Score: 1

But, but, Jobs is teh evil and besides, he doesn't know anything because he started up a company that makes toy computers that are only good for playing games and they all suck because they can't play any computer games.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

They won't miss it. by grub · 2011-02-21 07:24 · Score: 0

We have an iPad 3G and don't recall ever crying "oohhh gnoz!!! teh Flashez are gonez!"
Yeah, our household is just one datapoint, but I'd wager we're in the majority.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:They won't miss it. by Samantha+Wright · 2011-02-21 07:36 · Score: 2

“Anecdotal evidence isn't valid!”
“Yes it is! I once used an anecdote as evidence, and later it turned out I was right!”

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:They won't miss it. by DavidinAla · 2011-02-21 07:37 · Score: 0

I agree 100 percent. My iPad replaced my laptop last April and I don't recall a single time a lack of Flash has mattered to me.
Re:They won't miss it. by grub · 2011-02-21 07:39 · Score: 1

That's why I said we were just one datapoint :)

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:They won't miss it. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-21 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

How many(if any), native applications are you using that are iDevice-specific implementations of a web property or game that is otherwise flash based? If nonzero, how many of those also have an Android equivalent?

That is why Apple can spit on flash, while Google is getting cozy with Adobe... Apple knows that, for the present at any rate, they have the install base sufficient to drive people to develop platform specific applications for them. Android has fewer platform-specifics, which makes Adobe's ability to(imperfectly) make available the vast legacy base of Flash stuff all at once attractive...

In the long term, Flash is almost certainly fucked. Apple and Microsoft both have competing native environments and development tools in which they are strongly invested, and which are defaults on their platforms. Google is less overtly hostile; but their native environment also isn't flash based, and their web products are pretty aggressive about advancing native HTML/JS and using those where possible. Adobe has the advantage of well-entrenched design tools; but their flash runtime has no platform of its own, and the world isn't quite as friendly as it used to be... Short and mid term, though, there is a huge body of legacy and current stuff that they can offer to platforms with weaker native application bases.
Re:They won't miss it. by Samantha+Wright · 2011-02-21 08:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, but there're only so many anecdotes on a day without incendiary politics stories.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:They won't miss it. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 09:34 · Score: 0

You were correct. Something some folks have a hard time understanding is this:

Q. What do you get when you have 100 anecdotes?
A. You have data.

It would be true to say that it hasn't been corrected for x and y and z - but it is not correct to simply write it off either.
Re:They won't miss it. by evilviper · 2011-02-21 09:41 · Score: 2

. Apple knows that, for the present at any rate, they have the install base sufficient to drive people to develop platform specific applications for them.

Yes, we know how very well that strategy played out for Apple in the past, when they were the leaders and competing with cheaper but open and standard alternatives...
But hey, it's not like they're in imminent danger of Steve Jobs leaving the company... oh.
It certainly sounds an awful lot like history repeating.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:They won't miss it. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-21 09:56 · Score: 1

Hence the "for the present at any rate"...

If(and only if) Apple adjusts their strategy as needed, I would say that what they are doing is (while rather nasty) quite pragmatic. They could hardly have had a better position from which to induce the production of iOS-native applications, favorable network effects, and customer lock-in than they have enjoyed since the iPhone release. They would have been foolish to turn that down by spending their time obsessing about whether it could support Flash, and Java(and its cellphone variants), and BREW, and whatnot. They had what a very desirable segment of customers very much desired. That left them in the position to make the rules and tell everyone that they could play along or not at all. By doing so, they made a pile of cash and had a huge library of applications produced for their exclusive platform.

Now should they(through some combination of the continued improvement of Android and decreasing cost of handsets running it or internal Scully-esque stagnation) start heading back to the bad old days of flogging incremental improvements to old products, for high prices, as their competitors advance rapidly, they may have to revise this strategy...

If they do revise it, they should get away largely unscathed(and with a giant pile of cash and legacy application lock-in in the bank). Even after Jobs' public mockery of them, Adobe would probably come running like a whipped puppy if given the chance to offer Flash on iDevices. Doing something along the lines of Blackberry's rumored 'dalvik-alike' android compatibility mechanism would also be entirely possible. As would things like making the device available to more carriers and/or for a lower margin.

If they do not revise it, they could have some long-term issues...
Re:They won't miss it. by fermion · 2011-02-21 11:07 · Score: 1

Yes, we know how very well that strategy played out for Apple in the past, when they were the leaders and competing with cheaper but open and standard alternatives... The thing is that it depends on what one calls cheaper and open and standard...
If you are talking about standard, Apple did not compete with standards, they used standards while other standards evolved around them to compete with Apple. For instance Apple used the RS242 standard for many interconnects. It was well understood and easy to implement with software using widely available hardware. Compare the random and non standard connects of the mid-1980s. Apple also used SCSI. Some did not like it, because it was expensive, but it provided and elegant standards based solution to a complicated problem. It was easy to plug and play in a time when such things did not often exist. USB was fully implemented again provided standards based plug and play connectivity. Using standards based protocols for printers, cameras, scanners, it is not neccesary to create and configure a driver for every device. Just plug and play.
The standards for Mail, iCal, iDisk, iTunes, iBooks are open and, outside of annoying DRM, can interact with any compliant standard setup.
What many complain about is that the Mac is not an 'open' hackers machine. But neither is the PC. Hacking is not replacing one hard drive with another. Hard hacks are hardly every done anymore, and hard hacks not involving the machine itself no longer requires access to the internals of the machine. I remember my Apples never had a lid on because i was in and out of them due tot he fact that to get speed, you had to access the mother board. Now I can get a universal chip programmer or under $100 and hook it up to my USB port.
Now if all you want is cheaper, that is another story. My opinion is this 30% fee is really going to push the market for Android. Right now iBooks is a complete dud and anyone who wants an ereader has an Amazon.
Apple did right in creating a device based with open standard interfaces. The month by month for 3g is good, and the no free for WifI is good. They corrected the mistake of the newton with a fully integrated product offering between all devices. For what I use the devices for, they serve my purpose and I really can live or not live with the subscriptions services. I do not really see myself depending on SaaS, especially since Apple products run so many OS products. I either can pay for a product once and use it on all my machines, or simply get the product for free. None of the complications of so-called 'open' proprietary products.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Wow, that was close... by dtmos · 2011-02-21 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the headline I was concerned that Xoom wasn't going to have reprogrammable nonvolatile memory.

I need to get out more.

So what? by yog · 2011-02-21 07:30 · Score: 2

Honestly, Flash is nice to have but not the be-all end-all that some have made it out to be. On my Android handheld, flash is almost all advertisements. On my iPad, I've been able to stream Netflix, Yahoo clips, YouTube, and WSJ videos with no problem. Somehow they've worked around the no-Flash limitation.

As a side note, I love my new iPad but some spouse or daughter is going to inherit it as soon as one of these awesome Honeycomb tablets comes down to my price range. iPad is great, but a bit too closed for my tastes. I'll just have to suffer a few months longer...

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.

Re:So what? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-02-21 07:34 · Score: 1

Unless something changes, you'll give up your Netflix streaming when you trade your iPad for a Android tablet. I'm hoping that Netflix will make a honeycomb version of their player.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:So what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-21 07:47 · Score: 2

I think that, in large part(aside from specific niche/legacy stuff that is simply "flash or nothing", which is comparatively rare but very important to certain buyers) Flash is more of an issue for runners-up.

Because Apple has a fairly impressive chunk of the desirable customers demographic and a strong no-flash position on their iDevices, many outfits who were previously content to use flash have had to adjust. However, many of them have just churned out an iDevice-specific app that wraps their web content, rather than re-tool their web presence. For non-Apple devices, this isn't all that helpful. It is quite likely that many of them will eventually do the same for Android; but, in the meantime, there is a problem. Adobe, while dubiously competent, is the party capable of providing a general-purpose solution to viewing flash-dependent web properties.

I can only assume that neither Adobe nor Motorola are happy about this. Motorola needs all the advantages they can get in competing against the incumbent tablet device, and the longer Flash on mobile devices remains a joke, the more Flash users will come up with alternatives that will reduce Flash's value to embedded device developers and likely trickle back to the PC side sooner or later(and I'm pretty sure that there isn't an IT department on earth who wouldn't love to stop supporting the Flash plugin...).
Re:So what? by Qwavel · 2011-02-21 08:18 · Score: 1

"On my iPad, I've been able to stream Netflix, Yahoo clips, YouTube, and WSJ videos with no problem. Somehow they've worked around the no-Flash limitation."
Yes, that's because either they support HTML5 video (YouTube), or they abandon web delivery and use iTunes or App Store, for those that want content protection.
That's great for Apple, which gets to implement their 30% tax and block stuff for whatever strategic, political, or moral reason they like, but that is bad for:
- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more,
- for developers who have to write an app for every platform,
- the web, which seems to shrinking for the first time
- for less popular platforms that don't have as many apps.
I agree with you that Flash is used for a lot of obnoxious ads, so I dislike it too, but I like the idea that content distributors can deliver their content over the web, in a platform independent manner, without adding an extra layer of tax and control. A good example of this is Amazon video service - their support of Flash means that you can watch the video you buy from them on an enormous array of devices. So, while DRM is generally obnoxious, it is not nearly so bad when it is not used to artificially restrict the devices that I can watch it on (e.g. as with Kindle or anything Apple).
As for it being inefficient compared to native code, and Flash sites working poorly on mobile devices, the same can (and was) said of the web in general. Javascript is inefficient compared to native code and all web sites rendered horribly on mobile devices until they were appropriately tuned. I prefer that the owners of a Flash website tune their Flash for mobile instead of leaving it as is, writing iPhone and Android apps with all the disadvantages that I list above.
Re:So what? by ducomputergeek · 2011-02-21 08:18 · Score: 1

What this is the fact that apple and other devices have H.264 decoding chips embedded in the hardware. H.264 doesn't require a flash container. You'll find it a lot of places as a .m4v in a mpeg 4 container. For video that is all Flash is was a container. It just happened to be the container that was nearly universal for both mac and pc for many years.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:So what? by BlueStraggler · 2011-02-21 08:38 · Score: 1

- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more,
That's a fee for marketing and distribution. I'm skeptical that we consumers would pay 30% less if developers all had to manage their own sales, marketing, and distribution channels. The evidence so far indicates that we can expect to pay 60% less on apps delivered through the app store, despite this 30% fee.

So, while DRM is generally obnoxious, it is not nearly so bad when it is not used to artificially restrict the devices that I can watch it on (e.g. as with Kindle or anything Apple).
How does forcing video to HTML5/H.265 artificially restrict the devices you can watch it on?
Re:So what? by rfdparker2002 · 2011-02-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Well as much as I hate DRM (and think it never achieved it's claimed goal anyway), the main reason I've seen Netflix claim they won't make an Android release in the past is something like a lack of a 'universal DRM solution' across Android devices - well if you look at http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-3.0-highlights.html#multimedia - hopefully this 'Pluggable DRM framework' may be what they're looking for. That said, being in the UK, I can't get Netflix anyway, and I don't expect to see LoveFilm bringing its service to mobile devices any time soon.
Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:54 · Score: 0

Could we stop saying pc when we mean Windows at least here? I have no problems with laymen doing that -- context usually helps there -- but I'd like to set the bar a bit higher for someone who claims to be a "computer geek"...
Re:So what? by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 09:04 · Score: 2

That's great for Apple, which gets to implement their 30% tax and block stuff for whatever strategic, political, or moral reason they like, but that is bad for:
Let's be clear here. Apple keeps 30% of revenue for apps sold. This pays for the payment processing (including the credit card processing fee) as well as all the infrastructure involved. If the developer does not charge for his/her app (and many of the ones above do not), the Apple gets nothing. As for subscriptions, the new model is this: Apple gets 30% of subscriptions if Apple is the one that originates the subscription. If the subscription already exists or was initiated through the content provider (ie. WSJ website), Apple gets nothing. So if you sign up for Netflix through Netflix, Apple doesn't get anything. If you sign up for Netflix through Apple, Apple gets 30%.
No you may argue that 30% is too high but before Apple's store, some stores charged as much as 40% and the credit card processing fees. You have the choice of not developing for Apple should you choose. There are choices.

- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more
Only if the content provider decides to charge two different tiers based on where the subscription originated.

for developers who have to write an app for every platform
This was a complaint long before Apple and will be one long after unless you can name a universal platform that works well on all hardware. Java could have come close but there were still enough differences in hardware to make it troublesome. Remember Symbian apps didn't work on Blackberries which didn't work on WinMobile which didn't work on Palm, etc.

for less popular platforms that don't have as many apps.
Developers who code for a living will develop for platforms that make them money. This translates to developing for the most popular platforms. Sure there are some that will do it for altruistic reasons but it is hardly Apple's fault that people need to eat. It would be the same situation if WebOS was the number #1 platform for apps.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-21 09:06 · Score: 1

For pure *tube cases, it is true that Flash is essentially entirely unnecessary. As you say, it just does decode on an mp4 or flv video pulled from a URL, and provides a few basic play control widgets(and typically ads...).

On quite a few sites, the URL for the video file is clearly visible in the page source. You can even rewrite the page on the client side for HTML5 video with some basic greasemonkey or equivalent. Annoyingly, enough sites do a little bit of obfuscation/screwing around with referrer URLs and cookies/embedding certain parts of the URL in the .swf player/etc. that creating a fully general-purpose HTML5-ifier would require either per-site hand tuning or a more invasive approach(traffic sniffing the HTTP GET request usually works...)

The more complex(but still quite easy for the video provider to build app support for without changing much) case is mp4 video over RTMP or RTMFP... I suppose, if you had access to all the fun HTML5 web sockets and high speed JS and so forth, you might be able to port rtmpdump to javascript and have it reconstruct the mp4 file in local storage and play back from there; but that would be more a stunt than a practical application. However, since the provider controls the permissiveness of their RTMP/RTMFP server, they can presumably get an app working with it...

Either of these cases could easily enough be addressed in an adroid application as well(even a third-party one, if the provider isn't using RTMPE or constantly tweaking their web code in order to break those...); but the marketshare numbers are such that quite a few web properties do have an iDevice app and don't have an Android one.

The genuinely hard case is the one where the full capabilities of Flash are put to use. The classic vector graphics/bitmaps/actionscript stuff. This is rarely what people mean by "flash video" anymore(though it was, back in the day); but still covers essentially all Flash games, some 'webapp' interfaces, and that "AIR" stuff that Adobe is always desperately hoping people will care about. On the client side, you basically have no option but to run Flash if you want to use this stuff(the 3rd party implementations of the flash environment sometimes work; but you are still running flash). On the provider side, re-tooling such flash-based assets takes some, potentially a great deal, of effort. Only viable if the marketshare numbers are compelling.
Re:So what? by uglyduckling · 2011-02-21 10:01 · Score: 1

You seem to be confused. Apple aren't trying to put a "30% tax" on video embedded in web pages, they just don't support the (buggy/unreliable/battery draining/whatever excuse) Flash plugin on the iPad. You're free to watch videos using any other container, just not wrapped in an outdated proprietary plugin that was originally designed for putting vector graphics on web pages.
Re:So what? by Sancho · 2011-02-21 11:31 · Score: 1

- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more,
That's a fee for marketing and distribution. I'm skeptical that we consumers would pay 30% less if developers all had to manage their own sales, marketing, and distribution channels. The evidence so far indicates that we can expect to pay 60% less on apps delivered through the app store, despite this 30% fee.
Amazon claims to take 30% (that's slightly off as I understand it, but good enough for our purposes) and give 70% upstream. Now Apple wants 30% of the whole, which is equivalent to Amazon's cut. Amazon can increase the cost by some amount in order to make any money whatsoever on the sale, or they can completely eat any in-app purchases (hoping that extra-app purchases make up enough to keep the whole thing profitable) or they can stop distributing their Kindle app.
Re:So what? by biovoid · 2011-02-21 14:49 · Score: 1

- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more
Only if the content provider decides to charge two different tiers based on where the subscription originated.
Except that one of Apple's terms is that you CAN'T charge a lower price in your own store than what you charge in Apple's store. You're not allowed to undercut Apple.
Re:So what? by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 17:07 · Score: 1

So content providers have three choices: 1)Keep prices the same for both tiers and do not make as much money on Apple's subscriptions. 2) Raise prices across all subscriptions or 3) Do not do business with Apple. Whatever the choice they decide it's up to them to make a choice. But also remember that Apple only gets the subscriptions cut from the subscriptions they generate. Subscriptions not generated by them are not charged.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So what? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2011-02-21 17:23 · Score: 1

As for subscriptions, the new model is this: Apple gets 30% of subscriptions if Apple is the one that originates the subscription.
That's true but incomplete. The model is that, plus you're required to offer a subscription through Apple at the same price or less than you offer it elsewhere. Which, combined with the fact that Apple's billing is more convenient (since they already have your info) means that nearly all subscriptions from new customers on Apple devices will result in Apple getting 30%.
What this means is that many services will have to decide between losing money on Apple users or being priced out of the market for other customers.

No you may argue that 30% is too high but before Apple's store, some stores charged as much as 40% and the credit card processing fees. You have the choice of not developing for Apple should you choose. There are choices.
I am not aware of stores that take 30% of subscriptions, forbid you from selling elsewhere for a lower price, and require you to offer their subscription model if you want access to their restricted hardware.

Only if the content provider decides to charge two different tiers based on where the subscription originated.
Apple does not allow you to charge a higher price to users who subscribe through the Apple marketplace. That means that everyone ends up paying more to cover Apple's cut.
Re:So what? by glebd · 2011-02-22 00:04 · Score: 1

iPad is great, but a bit too closed for my tastes. I'll just have to suffer a few months longer...
You poor thing... Such suffering, having to use a device that you happen not to like. You know what, being a kind and altruistic soul, I'll rescue you from your unimaginable misery by reluctantly accepting your iPad, free of charge.

Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by metalmaster · 2011-02-21 07:33 · Score: 1

It's sort of a bummer if the first honeycomb tablet wont support one of(if not the) largest video sites. After all, that used to be a selling point. I know there are hacked together solutions that convert content "in the cloud" and push to the device, but thats got limited support.

Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by Desler · 2011-02-21 07:33 · Score: 2

What are you talking about? Phones and tablets use the youtube app to stream video. There is no flash required at all.
Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by DavidinAla · 2011-02-21 07:40 · Score: 1

If YouTube is dependent on Flash, how do you suppose my iPhone has been viewing YouTube videos from Day 1 (and the iPad has done likewise)? YouTube's video is encoded as MPEG-4. Devices using Flash using Flash to decode and play the MPEG-4. Devices that can directly play the MPEG-4 just do that. This isn't rocket science to understand.
Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:51 · Score: 0

the safari mobile browser detects youtube embed links and converts it to some html 5 thingy.
And of course there is the youtube app.
So no flash.
Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:04 · Score: 0

yup, and just like most apple customers, that solution sucks cock.
if you can't support flash in your device then 98% of the people out there will not be interested in it - like it or not.
most of the public will not have even heard of flash before the iphone and ipad mess-up, but they sure as hell don't want it left out.
Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by LWATCDR · 2011-02-21 08:16 · Score: 1

You are kidding right? Smart Phones have had a YouTube app for years and now YouTube has an HTML 5 mode that supports h.264 or at least did and they are adding WebM support.
So the answer is a simple no it isn't.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by metalmaster · 2011-02-21 10:02 · Score: 1

What you naysayers dont forget is that the mp4 encoded video is wrapped in a flash container.
The apps you speak of either transcode from the flv or extract the mp4(depending on the device) I've used apple, motorola, samsung, nokia, ZTE and Blackberry devices and none seem to access the full youtube library. Some devices default to m.youtube.com which is even more limited. Explaining this to my family, friends and customers is always trouble. Average people just want stuff to work. Those apps do not always work..

Flash is a dog on tablets by eggoeater · 2011-02-21 07:33 · Score: 1

I have a Galaxy tab. The dedicated youtube app works fine, but running flash within the browser brings the whole machine to a halt for many seconds.
As a result, Vimeo is pretty much uselss and they don't have a dedicated app yet (just a buggy fan-made app).

--
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.

Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:37 · Score: 0

Flash is a dog on everything.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

So what you're saying is that from your first hand experience, Flash on Android sucks. From my perspective, it's been about 8 months since Flash on Android has been released and they still haven't gotten the kinks out yet enough for it to be usable. I remember when Jobs made the argument nine months ago that Flash for mobile just was not suitable. A lot of people here on slashdot responded that that Flash for Android would prove him wrong. In your opinion, do you think that today Jobs was more right or the Flash supporters?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by peragrin · 2011-02-21 08:41 · Score: 1

considering that it will be another 2-3 years before flash on android/arm is stable enough to actually use, and the current version has many limitations.(not all flash features are actually supported enough to run).
I would say Jobs is right. The underlying hardware is changing far to fast for Adobe to keep up. Adobe's 5 year development cycles just don't cut it in a market that changes every 6 months.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 09:32 · Score: 0

So what you're saying is that from your first hand experience, Flash on Android sucks. From my perspective, it's been about 8 months since Flash on Android has been released and they still haven't gotten the kinks out yet enough for it to be usable. I remember when Jobs made the argument nine months ago that Flash for mobile just was not suitable. A lot of people here on slashdot responded that that Flash for Android would prove him wrong. In your opinion, do you think that today Jobs was more right or the Flash supporters?
The flash supporters were way more right. Notably, many porn web sites require flash to work, but work great on Android.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by ravenscar · 2011-02-21 11:14 · Score: 2

That's inconsistent with my experience. I run flash on my Galaxy S and find it to be just fine for animations and video. There are no problems with the load time. I do notice that activities like scrolling and zooming become 'choppy', but that hasn't killed my experience. I expect my mobile device to be a little less snappy when viewing video. To compensate, I just set Dolphin to display Flash content only when I want to see it. I then have the choice to view the content or not. I appreciate that.
I've not used Flash on Android for navigation, but I would imagine that the experience there is poor.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by biovoid · 2011-02-21 14:56 · Score: 1

Adobe releases a new major version (x.0) of the Flash Player every 18 months, and that cycle is getting shorter with each version. They release minor versions almost weekly. But don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred. That's twice now.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by peragrin · 2011-02-22 00:59 · Score: 1

Really then why does flash still use 50% of my processor on my mac when running flash 10.1?
oh that's right the only thing to get accelerated was video.
Take a good look at what adobe promises and what they deliver. Adobe is like a politician making promises and only loosely sticking by them.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-22 01:24 · Score: 0

Really then why does flash still use 50% of my processor on my mac when running flash 10.1?
I don't know. What was Flash doing at the time? Perhaps its because it's a cross-platform virtual machine that runs the same code identically within the constraints of the browser on every major platform. Do you honestly think HTML5 will manage to do the same? Or do you think we should all go back to text?

oh that's right the only thing to get accelerated was video.
Video has been accelerated on Windows for years now. The reason it has taken so long on Mac is Apple's fault, not Adobe's. Apple wouldn't allow plugins access to hardware decoding until recently.
And 3D hardware acceleration of Flash is coming in the next major update. For someone who claims to know about what Adobe does and does not deliver, you know very little about the subject at hand.
I understand why you hate Flash. It has been misused and abused for a decade now. I hate it when that happens too. But you're mistaking the application of the technology for the technology itself.
Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-22 14:47 · Score: 1

Video has been accelerated on Windows for years now. The reason it has taken so long on Mac is Apple's fault, not Adobe's. Apple wouldn't allow plugins access to hardware decoding until recently.
No up until recently Apple didn't open the APIs so that 3rd parties could directly access hardware acceleration. What's Apple's complaint was that Adobe was using this an excuse. Apple contends that they had APIs so that 3rd parties to could let the OS decide when and how to handle video (as some Macs use the Intel GPU and some use nVidia and some use ATI). Instead of making these API calls, Adobe wrote their own low level video codecs instead. For Adobe this was programmatically cheap as all they did was convert their Windows routines; however, this method bypasses all hardware assistance as it uses 100% CPU causing problems for Macs.
I was skeptical until someone showed me a test. He had a simple video. He ran it in Quicktime on an older Core Duo Macbook with an Intel GPU. 20% tops. He ran it using open source VLC. Same 20%. He encoded it and ran through Flash. 100% CPU. The fans started to kick in trying to cool off the processor. Just for kicks he ran the same Flash file using VLC. 20% CPU. VLC uses Apple's APIs when trying to play video; Adobe apparently didn't.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Video of it in use by fredmosby · 2011-02-21 07:40 · Score: 1

Is there any video of someone actually using the Xoom? So far the only video I've found is someone using it's video player.

Re:Video of it in use by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:46 · Score: 0

Yes. Since that Google event earlier this month, there's been several videos of it being used hands on.
Re:Video of it in use by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 09:05 · Score: 0

Yeah, ever since Google's even on the 2nd, there's been plenty of videos of it in actual use on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9rMzPaMOY

Check the track record first... by TheQuantumShift · 2011-02-21 07:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Motorola has been quite bad about promising updates and not delivering. See here for a list of broken promises. Especially glaring was the failure on the Cliq XT. A year of "we're testing it" followed by "we just couldn't do it". Never mind that the phone ships in Korea running 2.1, never mind that custom 2.1 firmwares work flawlessly, they just wanted to sell new phones. I know Moto is just another big corp doing what big corps do, but eff them, I (and all the non-techies that ask my advice) won't be buying Moto anything again.

--

Shift happens. Fire it up.

Re:Check the track record first... by wiredog · 2011-02-21 07:57 · Score: 2

Yeah, you can buy LG! Because they're so much better! Or Apple! Or..
Actually, I hear HTC and Samsung are pretty good.

--

Best Slashdot Co
Re:Check the track record first... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:02 · Score: 0

Motorola has been quite bad about promising updates and not delivering. See here for a list of broken promises. Especially glaring was the failure on the Cliq XT. A year of "we're testing it" followed by "we just couldn't do it". Never mind that the phone ships in Korea running 2.1, never mind that custom 2.1 firmwares work flawlessly, they just wanted to sell new phones. I know Moto is just another big corp doing what big corps do, but eff them, I (and all the non-techies that ask my advice) won't be buying Moto anything again.
Flash is a market app. Motorola and/or carriers have nothing to do with it.
Re:Check the track record first... by LWATCDR · 2011-02-21 08:19 · Score: 2

I would not say Samsung is pretty good. The Moment has several software issues that have never been resolved by Samsung but can be fixed by rooting and updating to "enthusiast" builds.
I was so soured on my Moment that when I could I updated to the HTC Evo. While I wished it have a stock build it is a very nice device and is running 2.2. 2.3 is supposed to come in March but until I see it I don't believe it.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Check the track record first... by elsurexiste · 2011-02-21 08:29 · Score: 2

Motorola has been quite bad about promising updates and not delivering.
Au contraire, they are quite good at promising updates and not delivering. They do it all the time.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:Check the track record first... by seifried · 2011-02-21 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Say what you will about Apple but they do support their devices properly for a good ~3 years or more in most cases. The only way I'd buy an Android device is if it was fully unlocked so I can update it myself using stock Android firmware and still have 100% functionality, otherwise you know you're going to get screwed (not if, but when).
Re:Check the track record first... by Excelsior · 2011-02-21 08:38 · Score: 1

You've given a reasonable case against Motorola. Who do you recommend (for Android)? Who has a good track record of delivering what they promise? Perhaps more importantly, who has a good track record of supporting updates for phones that are no longer being sold?
I have a Motorola Droid, and I've had no problem because I've just rooted it and installed my own upgrades. My bigger concern with Motorola is their trend of attempting to DRM lock the bootloader to prevent rooting. They make it harder for us to support ourselves when they no longer do it sufficiently. The Bionic looks like a great device, but they are apparently locking it pretty heavily, making it very unattractive for me.
Re:Check the track record first... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 09:21 · Score: 0

Really, if you can do TMobile or AT&T (specifically the former, and this for the US; I'm not clear on that status outside of the US), the Nexus phones are your best bet for that, simply just because Google is actually in control of them and can recognize that aspect of it more than just wanting to sell more and more phones.
Beyond that, I have probably heard the least complaints about HTC in keeping the phones up to date and supported beyond their own life cycle. HTC also seems to be one of the few that just hasn't been giving a shit enough that they still allow you to root their phones rather painlessly compared to what everyone else is going to (apparently, it's getting a little bit harder, but it's a hell of a lot easier than Moto's bullshit). From what I've heard, Samsung is going the way of Motorola with the locked bootloaders, so they're off my list unless that turns out to not be true (they're also slow as hell at getting good updates by themselves, and they're trying too hard to be Apple, anyway, if you ask me).
I too have a Droid (currently running nightlies of CM but I float around ROMs quite a bit), but I'm looking at possibly upgrading soon. The HTC Thunderbolt is about the only one that's actually tempting me right now--the Bionic did momentarily, but I despise Motoblur on the Droid X/2s that I have played with from friends that own them (not a fan of Sense either, but at least that can be turned off), and I demand the ability to root my phone if I so please (especially after my experience with the ROM makers making faster and more stable Android builds than the handset makers, in my case Motorola).
Re:Check the track record first... by ripnet · 2011-02-21 10:22 · Score: 1

I agree. I bought a European milestone last summer which was advertised as "flash ready", enabled by a software upgrade which was promised for mid 2010. Then it slipped to end of 2010, then early q1 2011. Current moto-lie is q1 2011.
Motorola outright lie about future upgrades. They do it on purpose to sell more devices. I would advise people to avoid motorola products like the plague, especially if they are buying on the basis of future promised upgrades. Check out forum on motorola europes Facebook page for evidence.
Oh, and they also lock the boot loader xbox/ps3 style (except the lock works) to prevent home brew roms from being used. I think this is deliberate obsolesce to force people to buy upgraded hardware.
Motorola - liars and fraudstars. Never again.
Re:Check the track record first... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-22 00:33 · Score: 0

Oh god, I'm going to sound like a fanboi, but how do you get Apple on this list? Every time there's an iOS update they provide it to every single device that has the hardware to handle it.
Re:Check the track record first... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-22 03:12 · Score: 0

Samsung are appalling at providing updates. The original Galaxy (i7500) came with Android 1.5 and was never updated despite many promises

Big Deal by phorest · 2011-02-21 07:48 · Score: 0

My Windows Phone 7 doesn't have it, why should I care?

--
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Re:Big Deal by amiga3D · 2011-02-21 08:42 · Score: 0

Hehe...you shouldn't care at all. That's what's great about the WIN Phone 7, you get to spend more time doing other things than fooling with your phone 'cause the phone makes you want to do almost anything except use it. A genius solution to people always on the phone just make using the phone a miserable experience.

Good riddance? by Haven · 2011-02-21 07:50 · Score: 1

I have moved into a flash free existence and all of my devices are better off. My electricity bill was less.

Please can you take a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 07:50 · Score: -1

Whatever your opinion on Apple as a company, I sincerely hope we can all wish the best for Steve Jobs. The sad news that he is only weeks away from meeting his maker is not in actual fact that sad, if you're an advocate for freedom on the internet.

While some of us will applaud his skill in selling tat to idiots, albeit people with all the technological expertise of a duvet, his business tactics have become more and more oppressive, and even balanced observers have noticed a tendency toward what can only be described as 'evil.'

As far as I'm concerned, the life of one of the workers in his sickening factories, is worth ten times more than his pathetic evil ass.

His recent moves to collaborate with Rupert Murdoch have been the last straw, and have led many of us to conclude that what is best for Steve (and the rest of us) is that the fucking cunt croaks fairly quickly, and that his shitty company dies with him; it really is about time.

Please take a moment to share a prayer with me.

Re:Please can you take a moment... by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 09:21 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned, the life of one of the workers in his sickening factories, is worth ten times more than his pathetic evil ass.
Steve Jobs is probably an asshole in real life as stories suggest, but, let's be honest: Foxconn is not one of his factories. Apple like Dell, like HP, like many other manufacturers contracts Foxconn to manufacture their products (sometimes in the same factory). Apple could have been more inquisitive about the working conditions of the people who make their products but there are not alone in this regard that they were not aware. In fact, I don't seem to recall that any other manufacturer promising anything to help the workers of their products before or after the incidents.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by tlhIngan · 2011-02-21 09:48 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned, the life of one of the workers in his sickening factories, is worth ten times more than his pathetic evil ass.
You do realize that Foxconn probably makes the Xoom as well, right? And everything else?
Hon Hai Precision Electronics (Foxconn) is a huge company - and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to buy any electronics that haven't passed through their hands.
So if you want to boycott Apple over the worker treatment at Foxconn, you will have to boycott Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, Samsung, Acer, Asus, Motorola, ...
Hell, do any of those companies actually try to audit their factories? Or have any of them done anything to help improve conditions?
Re:Please can you take a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 10:30 · Score: 0

ah, so it's cool to do really evil things as long as others are as well...
i wonder if western governments know about that argument - it might be convenient when it comes to providing support for foreign regimes that do horrible things like torture and murder their citizens. hey, you could call it Realpolitik...?
anyhow cheers for the useful moral argument, i must remember that one, it might be good to bring that out in court, in front of a judge. i wonder if it would wash...?
Re:Please can you take a moment... by Duradin · 2011-02-21 10:46 · Score: 1

If they don't audit then they can't know that anything is wrong so nothing needs to be improved and only Evil Apple was so vile to observe Foxconn and force the conditions and suicides into existence solely by that act.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 10:59 · Score: 1

i wonder if western governments know about that argument - it might be convenient when it comes to providing support for foreign regimes that do horrible things like torture and murder their citizens. hey, you could call it Realpolitik...?
Many times the complaint about western governments is that they impose their morals and customs on other countries. In this case, the western custom of an 8 hr work day must be adhered to is being advocated by you.
Also the problem was the number of suicides, not murders. Out of the hundreds of thousands of workers that Foxconn employs I think there have been 20 reported suicides. I don't to belittle the deaths of those who died, but that's a very small percentage considering that the two major plants of Foxconn employ about 750,000 workers.
Working for Foxconn means long hours, however, such is the normal in China. According to this BusinessWeek article, the employees want long hours because it means more money for them as they are paid overtime. As for the controlled environments, Foxconn has said initially when these factories were built, there was nothing around them: no shops, no restaraunts, etc. as they tended to be in the middle of nowhere. To keep employee turnover low, they had to build the amenities in the factories. If you're not aware even today, keeping employees is not easy in China today. Employees jump companies all the time.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 11:07 · Score: 0

ahhh ok
i always wondered why it was that people talk a lot about globalizing free trade... ...but you don't hear so much about globalizing human or labor rights.
so, if conditions are so bad in a factory that people kill themselves in numbers then we shouldn't impose our standards onto them (especially if it's not financially expedient to do so.) Ok.
i think i'm starting to get the hang of this, i reckon i just need my moral compass to be a little bit more flexible, like yours is.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 11:26 · Score: 1

i always wondered why it was that people talk a lot about globalizing free trade... ...but you don't hear so much about globalizing human or labor rights.
No the problem is you're complaining about a problem when you don't understand the definition. You are complaining that working long hours is some sort violation of labor rights when it isn't. Working 8 hours a day is only the Western ideal of work day in the US only. The French consider anything over 35 hours a week to be long. These are cultural differences in working hours..

so, if conditions are so bad in a factory that people kill themselves in numbers then we shouldn't impose our standards onto them (especially if it's not financially expedient to do so.) Ok.
No you have to understand that the knee-jerk reaction of "OMG factories in China are evilz" only show you don't really know what you're talking about. Please cite any fact other than the workers worked long hours as an example of bad working conditions.

i think i'm starting to get the hang of this, i reckon i just need my moral compass to be a little bit more flexible, like yours is.
No you just have to stop imposing your moral compass and judgment on everyone around you.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 11:51 · Score: 0

it's unfortunate that you don't seem to be at a level of technical ability that allows you to fully utilize google or any other search engine, so allow me to provide you with a few links - you need to copy this text (control + X) and then paste (control + V) it into the address bar.
i suppose that you might well be an apple user, which would explain a great deal =)
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-02/foxconn-workers-in-china-say-meaningless-life-sparks-suicides.html
http://www.techeye.net/business/terry-gou-tries-to-justify-foxconn-working-conditions
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-conditions-inside-chinas-brutal-foxconn-factory-2010-5
oh, and these websites may have some flash embedded into them, so if you're using apple then you may find that the performance of your machine may not be up to it. good luck with that!
and good luck with the flexible moral compass!
Re:Please can you take a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 12:24 · Score: 0

it's pretty clear you don't understand what morals are.
you were obviously trying for funny and ironic with your nick but as it turns out it's a surprisingly apt moniker!
well done for choosing it!
Re:Please can you take a moment... by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 12:29 · Score: 1

So far I read: workers worked long hours (sometimes 12 hours a day). And they didn't like their jobs because it was repetitive. There were some additionally restrictions like not talking. Some of the dormitories had cockroaches (like my old college dorm). And there wasn't running water (which isn't uncommon for China). Their bosses yell at them. They wished they got paid more. They can't afford the things they make.
The sad reality of their situation is that they wish they had better lives with more comforts. They feel trapped by their situation. They could quit but they feel they have to work to support their families back home. I hardly call those human rights abuses.
According to your own links:

There’s one special agreement workers could choose to sign for before starting to work. The workers could sign a voluntary overtime working agreement so the factory is not responsible for their long hours of working. Anyway, they still have public holidays just like anyone.
and

Foxconn’s working conditions are among the best in China, said Huang Ping-der, an associate professor of Business Administration at Taipei’s National Chengchi University. The recent suicides in China have highlighted weaknesses in the company’s management structure, he said.
and

China had a suicide rate of 16.9 people out of 100,000 taking their own lives in 2004, according to estimates from the World Health Organization.
For a company the size of Foxconn, they' have to have 119 suicides by factory workers just be considered "normal".

oh, and these websites may have some flash embedded into them, so if you're using apple then you may find that the performance of your machine may not be up to it. good luck with that!
I don't know what your technical ability is but I block flash and ads on Firefox.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Please can you take a moment... by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 12:33 · Score: 1

It's clear that you can't conceive that anyone or any culture may have different morals than you.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Flash is an App by Leonard777 · 2011-02-21 07:59 · Score: 1

Flash is not dependent upon the carrier or manufacturer.. just Adobe. So as soon as it is ready, users can download it from the Android Market.

xda developers to the rescue by Tr3vin · 2011-02-21 08:01 · Score: 2

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11520394#post11520394

While not as good as official support at launch, this may help those who need flash.

How retarded are Adobe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:02 · Score: 0

Are they trying to "Make-a-Wish" for Steve Jobs?

Split Personality? by Frosty+Piss · 2011-02-21 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's interesting that the majority of Slashdotters will froth at the mouth at the mere mention of the Evil Flash, and claim that *they* have it blocked anyway...

But mention a device that ships without it, and it's "crippled"...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Split Personality? by uniquename72 · 2011-02-21 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't run MSOffice either, but if you wanted to sell me a computer specifically designed to disallow running it, I'd tell you to shove it.

Also, despite blocking Flash from running ads on websites, I could still allow it with a single click if I came across a useful use of it.

And finally, I also run NoScript, but that doesn't mean no scripts ever run on my machine -- I allow what I want to allow.
Re:Split Personality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:46 · Score: 1

I think that comes from mistakenly thinking about the /. community as a single organism. Some people here hate it, some people here like it. Isn't that true with most large groups? I know you mention "majority", but unless you are talking about specific people and contradictory views they've given in the past, "majority" doesn't mean much.
I'm on the fence about it personally. I don't especially like Flash and the various problems it has, but for some applications, I don't know of a better technology. Either a replacement seems to not be present as ubiquitously, or not work as well for the specific use (usually graphical browser games that don't require installation). Now with touchscreen interfaces not working very well with Flash, it is well past time for a replacement, but I haven't seen one yet.
Re:Split Personality? by DrXym · 2011-02-21 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Flash isn't evil, it's just abused. When you load a page and it has 3 or 4 flash ads and every tab in your browser is the same your computer is going to have a hernia. Some people pretend this is Flash's fault but the reality is that if pages were serving up the equivalent workload in HTML5 performance is bound to be even worse. At least the Flash plugin can spawn threads, do background rendering and so on. Everything in HTML5 on the same page will be competing on the same thread (web workers could potentially handle some load but nothing DOM related).
The remedy is to use an ad blocker so you can pick and choose what content to receive. In time I expect Ad Block will be used as much to curb the abuses of HTML5 as it is for Flash now. Assuming HTML5 ads aren't inlined and obfuscated which is a distinct possibility.
Re:Split Personality? by uglyduckling · 2011-02-21 09:58 · Score: 1

Sorry, is there a device/computer specifically designed not to run Flash?!
Re:Split Personality? by gtbritishskull · 2011-02-21 10:44 · Score: 1

iPAD
Re:Split Personality? by RocketRabbit · 2011-02-21 11:17 · Score: 1

Yep, requirement number one, before they even decided on the form factor, was that it is not to run Flash.
That's totally true.
Re:Split Personality? by MistrBlank · 2011-02-21 11:30 · Score: 1

Um, no. Jobs has welcomed Adobe's attempt to produce a build of flash that wouldn't cripple the iPad and made sense for the interface.
I do believe Adobe has yet to come up with such build, instead they decided to launch an anti campaign. Seems to me that Adobe knows it's impossible and knows that Flash is flawed.
Re:Split Personality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 11:44 · Score: -1

WTF? Are you deluded? Flash has been the final multithreading hindrance in browsers for the last 4 years. All instances across ALL TABS run inside the same thread.
Re:Split Personality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 12:07 · Score: 1

How is that "split personality?" There's a huge difference between not running Flash and not being allowed to run Flash by a hardware manufacturer. Flash is bad, but a third party banning Flash is 10x worse.
Re:Split Personality? by Clsid · 2011-02-21 15:58 · Score: 1

What makes you think that a browser will render all of its HTML 5 components in the same thread? If anything, all new code is going to be heavily multithreaded with the upcoming 10-core processors.
Re:Split Personality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 16:18 · Score: 0

I don't run MSOffice either, but if you wanted to sell me a computer specifically designed to disallow running it, I'd tell you to shove it.
And if MSOffice cut your laptop battery life in half and caused your system to crash on a regular basis with no sign of MS fixing the problem, I bet you wouldn't be all that upset when your computer manufacturer decided not to build support for it in their OS.
Face it. Steve Jobs had the gonads to call Adobe out on their crap technology and all tablets will be better for it because now Adobe has to either fix Flash to prove him wrong; or they'll fail in the attempt, proving he was right about Flash being unfixable for handhelds, which will encourage the market to replace it with something better. Either way, the only way consumers lose is if they stubbornly cling to Flash and defend Adobe for no better reason than Apple-Hating.
Re:Split Personality? by DrXym · 2011-02-21 21:29 · Score: 1

HTML within a page is inherently single threaded. All JS loaded against that page runs from the same thread and manipulates the DOM, CSS etc. from that single thread. So if we had 4 HTML5 ads doing what Flash normally does with animation etc. they'd all be setting timers, e.g. every 1/30th second. Timer callbacks would be handled sequentially and time taken to do this would be taken away from the same thread. In addition all these animations would clobber the browser's layout manager with potentially 4 chunks of the page expecting to be repainted in rapid succession. I expect the browser would be dragged to its knees.
So can timers be done on different threads? No. If JS (e.g. on a timer) were permitted to run on a different thread, there would be all kinds of horrible race conditions, not just as it touched the DOM but also for any objects the timer interacted with. JS is probably too loose even to contemplate some locking mechanism where objects on one thread were locked for the duration of use to cause other threads to wait until they were released.
The only exception is the recently introduced web workers and if you read the spec you'll see they have to rely on messaging if they want to interact with the main thread at all, i.e. web workers live in their own little world, they receive messages and they can send them. If they want to do something to the DOM they have to send a message to do it and wait for the main thread to process their message. Potentially HTML5 ads could spawn a web worker which would do the heavy work in the thread and then message the main window when it needed an update. That might work assuming all browsers supported web workers which they don't currently.
I'm sure there are ways for browsers to improve performance but they are subject to these constraints. For example every browser tab could conceivably be a separate thread, especially if it has no window.opener. Cases where one window opens another and iframes is more problematic but could probably done with some marshaling.
Re:Split Personality? by AdrianKemp · 2011-02-22 03:37 · Score: 1

How is that "split personality?" There's a huge difference between not running Flash and not being allowed to run Flash by a hardware manufacturer. Flash is bad, but a third party banning Flash is 10x worse.
I'm legitimately curious about something... do you also agree with this statement?
"There's a huge difference between not murdering and not being allowed to murder by the police. Murder is bad, but a third party banning murder is 10x worse."
I'm not saying that flash is murder (except for the processor), but just where do you draw the line about people protecting you from bad things? There's no bad answer here as long as you have some rational justification for drawing the line.
Re:Split Personality? by TheSeventh · 2011-02-22 04:09 · Score: 1

That is probably one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

How about not eating fish, and not being allowed to eat fish. I think fish is bad (especially with the mercury problems) but telling everyone they aren't allowed to eat fish is much worse.

Or how about driving everywhere you go, and not being allowed to do anything but drive if you want to go somewhere?

Or not listening to Barbara Streisand, and not being allowed to listen to Barbara Streisand?

It isn't that hard to come up with analogies that make sense. For God sakes at least pick an activity that a large number of people want to do legally.

--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Re:Split Personality? by AdrianKemp · 2011-02-22 04:24 · Score: 1

So you don't understand what an analogy is, or what I was saying, or why what I was asking is important.
If you'd like to try again, I'll explain my comment more clearly... for all I know English isn't your first language and you were confused, rather than ignorant.
People accept not being allowed to do bad things all the time, it's what our laws are all about. If you are saying that something is bad, but you should be allowed to do it anyways you *must*:
1) have a line that you draw where something is "bad enough" to warrant prevention.
or
2) believe that all actions, no matter how bad should be allowed.
or
3) be mentally incompetent, possibly due to a psychological disorder.
If you fall into 2 or 3, it's good for people to know that so they can avoid you. If you fall into 1 I am legitimately curious about where the line is drawn. Most people consider personal rights paramount. If you actually believe you have a personal right that disallows other people to design products that don't run a piece of software I want to know where that falls in respect to the right to life.
Note: the poster (you, I'm guessing) *said* that flash was bad, so we aren't looking at an argument of whether or not flash is bad, that's already been established.
Re:Split Personality? by TheSeventh · 2011-02-22 10:51 · Score: 1

Wow, you really are an idiot. And not just a regular idiot either, but rather one that should be forced to wear a helmet if you go outdoors, provided that you are allowed outdoors, which I don't think you should be. Actually, that's not fair, I didn't intend to insult the mentally challenged by lumping you into the same category as them. My apologies.

but just where do you draw the line about people protecting you from bad things? There's no bad answer here as long as you have some rational justification for drawing the line
I'm sorry, people protecting you from bad things?! The original poster said flash was bad, this was an opinion, as in, I think seafood is bad, Apple is bad, Glenn Beck is bad, not bad as in wrong, illegal, immoral, unethical, etc. (Get a thesaurus and a dictionary if you're still confused, and given your less-than-intelligent response, I'm sure you are.) It's not something from which one needs to be protected. Just like seafood, I don't need anyone to protect me from it (you might, given your helmet-wearing needs).

People don't need to be, nor shouldn't be, protected from things that other people disagree with. If you don't like something, don't use it, do it, eat it, listen to it, etc. You have a choice in these matters. Ask someone which one is right for you, I'm sure any 3rd grader would be able to explain it to you.

The original poster thinks flash is bad, that's fine, he doesn't have to use it, but he shouldn't be barred from using it because someone else doesn't like it. This is very similar to my opinion that seafood is bad, but nobody should tell me I can't eat seafood. This is why you are apparently incapable of making analogies. My analogy is opinion-opinion, not opinion-capital crime as in your analogy.

Out of your 3 options, option 2 refers to actions. Read this slowly so you are more likely to understand it: "flash" is not an action, so you can't be allowed or not allowed to do it. We're not talking about "flashing", which is a different thing altogether, but with your feeble-mindedness, I'm sure you have a difficult time telling the difference.

You also left out other options, so it's not mandatory that I *must* fall into one of your pathetic excuses for choices. How about things that are bad for you in large amounts, but are fine in moderation? (Mod-er-a-tion, which means you can do it sometimes or every now and then, which is quite different than Prevention.) Some examples would be alcohol, eating red meat, eating fried foods, etc. Another option your puny brain forgot to include would be location-based activities, e.g. hunting, where it would be "bad" to do it in downtown Manhattan, but is fine, and even beneficial sometimes in low-population areas like Montana.

I won't even get into the insane notion that somehow a "personal right" could disallow anybody else from doing anything when it doesn't affect me. I mean, "right to design products" and "right to life"? Seriously, did you stop taking your meds or something? In any case, seek professional help. (And don't forget your helmet.)

--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Re:Split Personality? by uniquename72 · 2011-02-22 11:22 · Score: 1

And if MSOffice cut your laptop battery life in half and caused your system to crash on a regular basis with no sign of MS fixing the problem, I bet you wouldn't be all that upset when your computer manufacturer decided not to build support for it in their OS.
Angry Birds cuts my OG Droid battery life in half, and it's the only app that's ever crashed. DAMN GOOGLE FOR NOT BANNING IT!!!

Wait, on second thought, if Google banned it I'd actually be kinda pissed, because it's my fucking decision what to run on my fucking device. I use Apple products, but that doesn't mean I support every decision they've ever made, or will ever make. If you consider that Apple-hating, so be it.
Re:Split Personality? by AdrianKemp · 2011-02-22 14:22 · Score: 1

I didn't bother reading your comment... But you did answer the only question needed - clearly you understand english fine, you're just not very intelligent.
Re:Split Personality? by TheSeventh · 2011-02-23 04:47 · Score: 1

Too many big words for you? I did suggest you have someone buy you a Dictionary and Thesaurus, but those words probably confused you too, huh?

Odd that you can tell I understand English fine (nice grammar btw), but you could only tell from my second post, because apparently it wasn't obvious to you from my first post, but you "didn't bother reading [my] comment".

--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by jjo · 2011-02-21 08:11 · Score: 1

If you keep your iPad (or buy a new one), don't count on keeping your Netflix or Kindle apps. Apple is demanding that they sell their movies and books through Apple, and hand over 30% of the revenue. Apple is threatening to pull the apps if they don't get their way. It may end up that you will give up your Netflix streaming if you stay with Apple. Both Netflix and Amazon have annouced that they will release Android versions of their apps this year.

Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:35 · Score: 0

Duke nukem forever will also be released this year.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 08:47 · Score: 3, Informative

If you keep your iPad (or buy a new one), don't count on keeping your Netflix or Kindle apps. Apple is demanding that they sell their movies and books through Apple, and hand over 30% of the revenue.
If you read details of the new subscription model, Apple clearly says: " . . . when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing. " So if you currently have a Netflix account, Apple gets nothing. If you sign up for a new account through Netflix, Apple gets nothing. If you sign up for Netflix through Apple, Apple keeps 30%. Will Netflix go for that? It remains to be seen, but details matter.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by toriver · 2011-02-21 08:56 · Score: 0

Well, they demand users get to choose whether to get content through Apple or the provider, and that they cannot charge more for in-app purchases than online. For that they take a 30% cut, but the real problem for the content providers is that Apple don't give them customer info, which is what really has value in the transaction.
They could cut Apple out completely and make a HTML5 app for all browsers, but wait: HTML5 lacks the Digital Revenue Management they are so fond of...
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by Sancho · 2011-02-21 11:22 · Score: 2

Details do matter. Here are a couple more.
The Apple price has to be equal or less than the outside price.
The developer isn't allowed to include a link to purchase outside of Apple within the app.
For Netflix, right this moment, I suspect that this won't matter. Netflix almost certainly gets most of their revenue from people signing up first.
For Amazon, this is a huge deal[*]. People will buy things after having installed the Kindle app, and will probably be pretty likely to do so from within the app where Apple gets their 30%. Frankly, I hope that Apple gets slapped down by the FTC over this. Taking a cut is one thing, but requiring equal or lower prices is quite another and is obviously and blatantly anticompetitive.
[*] That said, I haven't seen a clarification on whether one-time purchases like e-books actually fall under the new terms, which everyone calls the "subscription model."
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 11:31 · Score: 1

Frankly, I hope that Apple gets slapped down by the FTC over this. Taking a cut is one thing, but requiring equal or lower prices is quite another and is obviously and blatantly anticompetitive.
You can say that's anti-competitive for Apple but the reverse means it's anti-competitive for Amazon. If Amazon can say that prices for Ebooks bought through Apple will be higher than Ebooks bought through Amazon (even though it's the same book), who's being anti-competitve? Apple is saying if companies want to use their infrastructure, they can't up the price.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by Sancho · 2011-02-21 11:38 · Score: 1

It's anticompetitive because Apple has their own bookstore.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 11:56 · Score: 2

And so does Amazon.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by gmhowell · 2011-02-21 14:27 · Score: 1

[Citation needed]

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-02-21 15:24 · Score: 2

Right. However, Apple also runs the platform.
My analogy: Imagine a mall. Apple has a cute litte bookstore. Amazon has this giant multi-level warehouse-like bookstore. Sony has this tiny little kiosk.
Amazon makes a ton of money selling lots of books through their store. They have the market clout to get great prices and they keep their overhead low with their warehouse-like store. Apple has a nicer store where people will suggest books and be friendly and they make a little money. Sony makes a little money with their little-tiny kiosk.
Apple would love to make more money. Apple is also in the enviable position of owning the mall. So they tell Amazon and Sony, "Hey! You want to sell books in our mall? You have to let us sell your books in our stores at your prices and give us 30%. Don't like it? Then you can't be in our mall." If Amazon and Sony say, "Screw you," and leave the mall, Apple is now the only bookstore and if anyone in the mall wants to buy a book, Apple makes the sale. That means Apple makes more money. If Amazon and Sony say, "Okay," Apple gets 30% of Amazon's sales. It's win-win for Apple.
An effect of this: Let's say the newest Twilight/Harry Potter/whatever book comes out. Amazon manages to get exclusive rights to the book. So they advertise that they are the exclusive place to get the book. Apple then comes along and says, "Well, except for us! And we're selling it at the same price they are! Come buy it from our bookstore instead!"
Y'know, I laugh about all the Apple Fanbois who talk about companies getting "Zuned." Here's Amazon and Sony getting Zuned right there. It starts out with "We love our developers!" Then when their developers start making money, Apple says, "Oh! We'll do that, too! But we'd never use our position to compete unfairly..." And when they can't compete fairly, they play the pity card: "Oh, poor us! Amazon is making a lot of money selling content! It's not fair that we don't get any of it because we came up with the platform!" The fact that they made money selling the device seems to go right past everyone.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · 2011-02-21 16:59 · Score: 1

Your analogy would be structurally closer if all three owned malls. Remember, Amazon and Sony have their own businesses. Amazon sells music and books as does Apple and Sony. Sony sells electronics and computers some of which compete with Apple. Amazon sells other goods but sells both Sony and Apple goods. In other words, all three have a very complicated arrangement where they partner and compete with each other at the same time. The bottom line is if Sony or Amazon want to sell in Apple's store they have to follow Apple's rules. If they don't like the rules, nothing stops them from going on with the businesses they already run. So far Apple has not wanted sell any content in the other two's stores.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-22 02:40 · Score: 0

Those details are correct.

The detail that people are unhappy with is that Apple has a degree of control over the price you can set for other web-based subscribers, who may not even own an iOS device. The subscription price you charge for a non-iOS web user can never be lower than the in-app iOS price.
Perhaps this is to prevent you ramping up the iOS subscription price to absorb their 30% cut. Perhaps this is eliminate any other subscription model on the platform that doesn't give them a cut. One thing for sure is that they are effectively meddling in markets that are outside of (and perhaps pre-date) their iOS platform.
Apple can go control-freak crazy in their own walled garden, but not outside thank you very much.
Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-02-23 15:37 · Score: 1

Debatable.
In my analogy, the iBookstore is a store. Amazon and Sony's e-Book stores are also stores. iOS is the mall.
Remember that if you want to ship an App for an iOS device, it must be done through Apple's App Store. That's where we start getting into problems.

Not Motorola's fault. Probably not Google's either by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 08:22 · Score: 0

Adobe appears to have let them down. I know this is obvious, but the headline doesn't make it so.

Also this:

"Considering how slow carriers and manufacturers are when it comes to software updates, this Spring 2011 update could mean more like late Spring 2011 ETA."

implies Flash will need a Honeycomb update. Flash is just an application - not part of the OS. Its doubtful that Honeycomb will need any kind of update to accommodate Flash. Its likely entirely in Adobe's hands, which is moderately better than needing input from Adobe, Google, Motorola, and Verizon.

Still no resolution to touch on Flash by Arkham · 2011-02-21 08:24 · Score: 2

I have a couple of mobile devices with purported Flash support (Nokia N900 and N8), and while they play video and handle "click" ok, they don't do mouseover, dragging, and other things that makes anything besides video viable. The one device that I saw that supported these advanced features did so by creating a virtual cursor that you moved via arrow keys -- terrible. When Apple decided not to support Flash, this was one of the justifications, and in my mind, the only truly legitimate one. Until Adobe redesigns flash with some sort of drag or gesture support, it's always going to be a poor experience on mobile devices.

--
- Vincit qui patitur.

Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by alostpacket · 2011-02-21 10:58 · Score: 1

That's more of something the individual Flash devs should be fixing. Flash actually has excellent drag and drop support. Gestures are nice for some specific uses and some users (not all of them like it). Flash is actually a fantastic scripting and vector rending engine but they way it has been put to use in ads has given it a terrible reputation. And because of this people hold it up to imposible standards.

Does HTML5 support guestures natively? I cant find much info about it, but it seems not.

--
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 13:19 · Score: 0

You certainly don't know what you are talking about.
See kongregate on android.
Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by mrrudge · 2011-02-21 14:13 · Score: 1

Lack of mouseover/out is a touchscreen thing. You touched it, you clicked.
Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by biovoid · 2011-02-21 15:01 · Score: 1

Flash supports mouseover - your device doesn't (because it's a touchscreen). Flash has supported multitouch, gestures and even accelerometer events since late 2009.
Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 17:48 · Score: 0

Gestures are supported in Flex 3+ and Flash 10 and especially mobile Flash. It's up to the developers to implement gesture support. Maybe RTFM?
Re:Still no resolution to touch on Flash by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 23:27 · Score: 0

the n900 will do mouseover and dragging using gestures in the maemo broswer.
dragging your finger from off screen into the browser window will activate the mouse cursor and will act like a desktop cursor, mousing over and enabling you to rag and drop.
Next time RTFM...

Spring 2011? by Richy_T · 2011-02-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Seems close enough. At least it isn't on AT&T. I'm still waiting for my Captivate to be updated so the GPS will work properly.

Not at launch = never (for Motorola, at least) by elsurexiste · 2011-02-21 08:26 · Score: 2

To be honest, I've never heard of a firmware update coming from Motorola. All I hear is excuses. My L6 and Quench (aka Cliq xt) never got their update, so I'm basically a sitting duck for malware in Android. The L6 was trusty, but the Quench is full of bugs I'll never get fixed. I'm just waiting for Cyanogen Mod to add support to the MIB501 to erase the crap out of that phone.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!

Re:Not at launch = never (for Motorola, at least) by amRadioHed · 2011-02-21 09:48 · Score: 1

Flash doesn't require a firmware update. It is supported by Adobe, and they have been fairly regularly updating Flash player for Android.
For the record though, the original droid shipped with 2.0 and it has received updates for both 2.1 and 2.2.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Not at launch = never (for Motorola, at least) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 10:04 · Score: 0

Motorola is very very far from perfect on updates, but it would be wrong to say they don't do them at all. My original Droid went from 2.0 to 2.01 to 2.1 to 2.2, to 2.2.1 and is supposed to be getting 2.2.2 soon. I doubt that they will do a 2.3 - which sucks. But they have definitely done several updates to the device.

Hmmm... by Grindalf · 2011-02-21 08:30 · Score: 0

Isn't flash support dependent on the browser object model? DL a different browser... It works if you do that in the beta...

--
The purpose of existence is to make money.

Re:Not Motorola's fault. Probably not Google's eit by peragrin · 2011-02-21 08:46 · Score: 1

If Flash was just an app update why does every device and software combination have to be tested by Adobe for flash certification?

Adobe Flash requires direct hardware access. it requires tighter hardware access than the OS or the radio.

If it is just an app why does it need so much?

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

my phone works with flash by razpones · 2011-02-21 10:10 · Score: 1

I have a mytouch 4g, it had flash installed with android 2.2, it works ok on the tmobile network and in my own wifi. Not awesome but way better than my powerbook g4 with 10.4.11.

Thanks, but no thanks Motorola by themonkman · 2011-02-21 11:33 · Score: 1

Well there goes my purchase. I no longer believe manufacturers when they make promises on future capabilities of their hardware or software. Granted, it's probably Adobe that is causing the delay with the new Tegra platforms, but I've been burned too many times by promises of updates. While I wait for the Xoom to get flash I'll sit happy with my little T-Mobile G2 which runs Flash 10.1 like a champ.

MotoRizon strikes again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 12:58 · Score: 0

Missing Flash support is not a deal breaker (but dumb), however the thing that torques me off is that they cripple Wi-Fi until you pay an extortion fee for 3G service. There is no technological reason to do this. It is pure greed.

Motorola and Verizon just keep egging each each other on to be more and more greedy (and release premature buggy software - hello motoblur) and helping the other do it. Between the bloatware apps, and the VZ branded apps that charge you extra (hello vznavigator), I am fed up with them forcing things on me to make a quick buck. (and no I can't root my phone, its a company asset).

I for one will not support MotoRizon in this venture - as cool as I think the hardware/honeycomb might be. I will wait until competition forces them to reconsider their shenanigans.

I really hope people boycott the Xoom release and they feel the smack upside the head they deserve.

Not exactly a first from Motorola by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 14:46 · Score: 0

Just take a look at http://www.facebook.com/motorolaeurope, after reading the comment below by ripnet regarding the Milestone.

Telus Milestone promised Flash too...still waiting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-21 15:32 · Score: 0

Up here in Canada, we got a variant of the Motorola Milestone, and the carrier, Telus Mobility and Motorola both claimed Flash support was "coming soon". So far, we are stuck (officially) on Android 2.1, which does not have support for Flash.

There are hacks out there to bring it up to 2.2, but for something that was advertised a year ago as "coming soon", this is sub-par.

User interface? by torako · 2011-02-22 01:01 · Score: 1

I don't have a mobile device that can play Flash content, but maybe someone who has one knows this: How does Flash content react to knowing that it's run on a mobile device with a touch screen? Does ist serve a specialized UI that is suitable for touch input without a styles like many mobile web sites do now?

A lot of Flash content is already quite hard to use on a desktop (non-standard scroll bars, fixed resolution etc.)... I would hate to have the same user interface on a touch device with a small screen...

Browsers don't spend most their time on js by Nicolas+MONNET · 2011-02-23 06:34 · Score: 1

There's rendering and all kind of things that don't need write access to the DOM and can thus be threaded out.

Slashdot Mirror

Motorola Xoom Won't Have Flash Support At Launch

187 comments