Sorry, low-info post here… I’m just annoyed enough to correct some of the errors in Ben Charny’s most recent DowJones/CNN article. Here’s a snippet:
“Though a big hit on PCs, Adobe’s video player isn’t yet compatible with devices from Research In Motion, Apple’s iPhone and phones based on Google Android software. The Palm Pre, due in June in the U.S., also isn’t Flash compatible. Microsoft continued the pile-on last week, when it said an upcoming mobile version of its Windows operating system software won’t be compatible in the short term, and that its Windows Marketplace for Mobile online software bazaar won’t offer any Flash-based products. Apple is to update its iPhone software on Tuesday, and by all appearances, it still won’t be compatible with the Adobe feature. The one success has been No. 1 cell phone maker Nokia. While it says a billion Nokia cell phones are now Flash-compatible, many are cell phones, rather than their souped-up cousins the smart phone.”
Just off the top of my head:
Adobe Flash Player is more than “a video player”.
Blackberry doesn’t yet seem to have the oomph for rich-media type of applications, although there’s hope that future generations will.
Apple is a weird case — you’ve got to get them to talk about what they’ll be doing. Adobe has stated we’re working on making it run, but Apple’s got to provide a plugin mechanism to do so. It’s Apple’s story.
Google Android isn’t shipping yet, but they’re Flash-happy.
Microsoft is on board with Flash Lite, although I have no idea when they’re shipping. Puts a different spin on his Silverlight quote.
Palm Pre isn’t shipping yet, but they’ve also announced.
The “only hit is Nokia” bit is wacky… Nokia’s a great partner, and so are others. Flash Lite has been de-facto standard in Japan and Korea for years. We’ve shipped about a billion Flash Lite installations, not a billion Nokia Flash Lite installations. And that line about “Flash works only on the lower-end phones” collides straight with the blather about “Flash is too demanding for iPhone”.
Sorry I’m so cranky to correct — this off-kilter Ars Technica piece set it up, I guess — but technology is complicated enough, why add to the confusion?