Database Info

Flash Lite 3

Is there a version of flash i should be using with the 6.1 build? Sorry i am pretty new to this, and the only post i found was from oct. of last year. Has anything changed since?
Thank you

Flash is not required for windows mobile, so its not a question of should you, its personal preference. The latest version of Flash lite is 2.1, which is pretty old. Flash lite 3 is out, but not available for windows, and unfortunately it doesn't look like adobe will be releasing it for windows mobile.

thanks ... thats what i have been reading, but i guess i was hoping i was wrong

Nope, I've had & posted several of my communications with the folks at adobe. They are NOT planning on a windows mobile release. I wonder if that has anything with the fact that MS is developing a rival technology, hmm?

forget about flash lite 3. We'll be using SilverLight mobile soon

the_passenger said:
forget about flash lite 3. We'll be using SilverLight mobile soon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was what was I referencing...However, this is MS so I think "Soon" can be taken out of the equation. Think "Deepfish", could've just named that one "Deep Sixed".

i found the macromedia flah player on their site for windows mobile.. its even allowing youtube vids to come thru like pc.. it move slow at time, but i have many programs running on my tilt
gary

mazdarati220 said:
i found the macromedia flah player on their site for windows mobile.. its even allowing youtube vids to come thru like pc.. it move slow at time, but i have many programs running on my tilt
gary
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9894639-37.html
March 16, 2008 9:01 PM PDT
Microsoft to license Adobe's Flash Lite
Posted by Tom Krazit | 6 comments
Even though it has plans to release a competing technology, Microsoft has agreed to license Adobe's Flash Lite technology for its Windows Mobile operating system and browser.
The two companies are expected to announce Monday that Microsoft has signed a license to use Flash Lite and Reader LE in future Windows Mobile handsets as plug-ins for Internet Explorer Mobile. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, such as what the companies plan to do when Microsoft releases Silverlight for Mobile, a competing technology.
Flash Lite is a stripped-down version of the ubiquitous Flash video player that allows mobile handsets to view Web sites created with the Flash technology. Think of Flash Lite as a slightly older version of Flash; the most current version of Flash Lite can't properly display Web sites created with the newest version of Flash, Flash 9, but it works with sites created using older versions of the technology.
As smartphones become more and more common, people are starting to get fed up with the basic Web surfing experience offered by many phones. They want something that looks more like a PC experience, with rich graphics and video. But that's hard to duplicate on a device with a smaller screen, less memory, a slower processor, and battery life requirements.
Enter Flash Lite. "Past technologies have failed trying to get into mobile by cramming a desktop experience into a mobile device," said Anup Murkaka, director of technical marketing for mobile and devices at Adobe. "The technology has to bend to the use cases, rather than the use cases bending to the technology."
Microsoft's Derek Snyder agreed. "One of the hallmark experiences on any smartphone is the Web browsing experience," said Snyder, a product manager with Microsoft's mobile-communications business. Strengthening that experience, as well as adding support for PDF documents through the Reader LE license, was the motivation for Microsoft to make the deal, he said.
Flash Lite has several limitations compared with regular Flash, beyond the inability to support much of Flash 9. Apple CEO Steve Jobs rather emphatically declared his disdain for Flash Lite at Apple's annual shareholder meeting, saying Flash Lite was "not capable of being used with the Web." Murkaka declined to comment specifically on Jobs' put-down, but noted that Flash Lite ships on 500 million mobile devices.
He did acknowledge that developers using Adobe's Flex tools can't build Flash Lite Web pages, although the newer CS3 suite of tools does support Flash Lite.
But one huge advantage of Flash Lite is that it's currently available for mobile devices. Microsoft's Silverlight for Mobile is not.
Silverlight is Microsoft's attempt to rein in on Adobe's position in the Web development market with Flash. Microsoft is fighting an uphill battle, though, in trying to get Web developers to build sites using its technology as opposed to Adobe's.
Earlier this month Microsoft said it wouldn't have a mobile version of Silverlight out until later this year. A technical preview is expected to arrive in the second quarter, but no other details have been released. Snyder declined to elaborate on the time frame for a production version of Silverlight for Mobile.
With Microsoft's Windows Mobile team now having to meet a surge in demand for Web-friendly mobile phones, led by the iPhone, licensing Flash Lite makes sense as a "for now" solution, at least until the company's own dog food is ready. The iPhone has been able to capture mobile Web surfers without any support for Flash technologies, something that other mobile devices running IE Mobile or Opera's mobile browser will likely try to exploit later this year.
Eventually, Microsoft expects to support both Flash Lite and Silverlight on its Windows Mobile handsets. "Flash is, for a lot of people, something they've already invested in," Snyder said. Having support for the incumbent while it tries to get Web developers on the Silverlight team makes sense; "it's good to have both," he said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Thank you for the scoop, neilson.

so, are we expecting WM7's interface will be Flashlite 3 based ?

WM7 will more likley WPF (silverlight) based. Everything M$ .net looks to be going this way (for now).
Ta,
Dave

marm0lade said:
Flash is not required for windows mobile, so its not a question of should you, its personal preference. The latest version of Flash lite is 2.1, which is pretty old. Flash lite 3 is out, but not available for windows, and unfortunately it doesn't look like adobe will be releasing it for windows mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
according to engadget and a couple other sites m$ licensed adobe for flash lite
woo hoo right.

duswdav said:
according to engadget and a couple other sites m$ licensed adobe for flash lite
woo hoo right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not directly.
They licensed the Flash Lite 3 Browser Plug In
The old flash 7 Plug in is still available somewwhere.

On Skysports website the scorecenter is setup that you need a flash player so is there any way round it?.
Nick

nick0 said:
On Skysports website the scorecenter is setup that you need a flash player so is there any way round it?.
Nick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use either Opera 8.65 or NetFront 3.5

seems like a whole lot of intense hacking for 'opensource'

Being a fan of Linux, and an Ubuntu user, I guess I thought Android was going to be a lot more openly tweakable, but from looking over these threads it looks like it's actually not that easy to do things that I would have assumed would be easily accessible tweaks... like theme/appearance/fonts/icons, etc... In fact it looks like some pretty intense hacking is going on with slow progress in bypassing , etc...
Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. I don't have the G1, but my girlfriend does and I've been enjoying it from over her shoulder... I guess I just expected something more 'open' along the lines of what I've become used to with Ubuntu.
I kind thought Android would be to iPhone, what Linux OS is to Apple OS, but it definitely doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like Android is just as locked down as iPhone but with fewer apps and not-as-slick interface for the same price as an iPhone.
I had been thinking about getting this phone... maybe I just need to wait for more apps to come out?
Any thoughts?

As of right now we do have a little more opensource than anything else. And like all new software it will take time to learn what to do. Obviously people didn't get Mac OS 3 and immediatly know how to hack it so they could do things they weren't meant to do. And of course same goes with mobile phones. When WM5 came out they had to learn about the new OS and it takes awhile.
So far the freedom we have already surpasses that of any other. We have internet sharing (for those with root) that is far better than the old USB or BluetoothPAN method(which btw is going to be a new profile, it is in the source)
I am willing to bet that as soon as it hits 1.0 that we will see it go entirely open with the ability to flash the rom and all.

That makes sense... I just have to be patient Thanks for the reply!

Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit:
what Linux OS is to Apple OS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.

If I am not mistaken Mac's are unix based right? many the kernel is similar to linux... which is why the filesystem structure is similar as well.
But you are correct open source means you can see the source... but usually when someone can see the source they find a way to get around security holes that lock down the system.
With open source and developers an open system is possible. And we already know we can do it because we have modified the updates that are sent which change the system files. so all you need to do is put a new boot.img and a new recovery.img and replace the root system directory... before you know it you can have this running any version of android and/or anything else that will run on an ARM6 device.

Don't make it so complex. It's meaningless to play the words game.
To make it simple:
As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
jashsu said:
Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit: That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.

jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?

Gary13579 said:
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No clue. I'd probably do it with a Freerunner or something that is specifically designed as an open system. The recovery menu is not the only way to write to internal memory; i'm sure the HTC bootloader has some provision for usb access.
You have all of the Android operating system at your disposal in the form of source code (provided you agree to the license). If you want to write/port low level drivers for it go right ahead. You just can't run it on the G1. They chose to lock down the Android implementation on G1 and you're dissatisfied with that. That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.

jashsu said:
That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.

Gary13579 said:
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I know, it's a flawed analogy.
If you want to have free reign over your Android, I suggest you get a Neo Freerunner to play with. I say play because the open source portion of Android is missing a lot of closed source Google added value apps (Maps, Gmail, etc) that define the G1. Also the porting process is still ongoing.

Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.[/QUOTE said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

hetaldp said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
98% of G1s might get derooted with RC30, but guess what? 99% of users don't need root or don't care. Tmo and HTC didn't build the G1 as a device for devs to hack and play with. That's why its a subsidized $179 phone and your unlimited dataplan is $25.

99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Adobe is releasing Flash Plugins for Browser lets see they can do it by just releasing APK Package in Market or a Pushed OTA Update. If Adobe requires OTA Update then Smaller Company and Developers see hard time to develop such Extension without Googles Permission.
Just make your Science clear before commenting it

hetaldp said:
99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course. I am just saying that there is a sense among some people that they are entitled to root access simply because G1 is built on Linux. You are not entitled to anything of the sort. If root is important to you then sell your G1 to someone who doesn't care about root (there are a lot of these people) and buy a Freerunner.

Every OpenMoko phone I have seen looks like they are competing for ugliest phone ever. I know the G1 isn't that pretty, but oh my god, I would be embarassed to carry that in my pocket.

I already own more then 6 Smartphone. And i don't use G1 also becuase of Microsoft Exchange things. I dont have any Complaint for Exchange Connectivity.
Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
This means my core Application can run in free Runner (OpenMoko) but it will not be available in G1 user group. There will be handfull user who may use free Runner but its not my Market. I require bigger community to sell the Software buddy.

Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you need to get below the VM on stock ota G1 then most likely your product will need to become a part of the Android platform (meaning open sourcing). The integrity of the os and user data is one of the main reasons the Android sdk only supports the VM.
I'll be interested to see how Adobe's flash implementation for G1 works. Flash is closed source, and Google has explicitly stated that the entire Android platform is open source. My guess is they will patch the Browser to accept signed binary plugins. Perhaps Google's signature will require a peek at the source. I'm only speculating though...

Yeah using SDK we can only Develop Application which run itself in the Sandbox cna they can communication with other Application using intents, you can share Data using content Provider, share the Setting using Preference. We can develop some services in apps to handle Asynchronous process.
We we ca not do is recompile the Whole Modded Source, replace or test drivers, codec, low level binaries.
The SDK is fairly powerful out off the Box for Standalone things. !
Thats why i have made a different demand to google in this thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=444893
The only thing tmobile is worried is tethering, as they give unlock code after every 90% day Subsidized Handset unlocking is not a big worry for them.
Just think If you want to develop On Screen keyboard it require more powerful access to core system and its beyond Google Sandbox approach.

jashsu said:
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me where did I say Android = a linux pc. Same, I didn't say Windows Mobile = Windows XP/Vista.
I hate to play the word game.
jashsu said:
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I thought very high with Android. But the limited development access makes it worse than WM.
jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you please show us how to get the root from the f__king rc30?
Do you rebuild the whole linux on your pc if you just want to make a simple application?

[Q] Adobe Flash 10.1 on windows phone 7

Will adobe flash 10 be released for windows phone 7 browser later on? Can anyone confirm it

Google it.
Adobe themselves confirmed that it was coming.

Both Flash and HTML5 should be coming to WP7.
I am hoping that they improve it as the Android version I think was pretty bad.

Going by Microsoft's currently speedy reaction to the market/devs I would be surprised if Flash is not part of the early 2011 OS update that brings copy & paste and, hopefully, turn-by-turn navigation.
Adobe dependent obviously.

JEEtoP said:
Going by Microsoft's currently speedy reaction to the market/devs I would be surprised if Flash is not part of the early 2011 OS update that brings copy & paste and, hopefully, turn-by-turn navigation.
Adobe dependent obviously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope it is not Adobe dependent, it depends on the MS whether they will implement Active-X plug-in support into IE or not.
I think one of the wisest decisions MS have made with the mobile platform is do away from Active-X, even though I am not a fan of M$ by any means , however they have no other plug-in mechanism at the moment to support Adobe flash.

lqaddict said:
Nope it is not Adobe dependent, it depends on the MS whether they will implement Active-X plug-in support into IE or not.
I think one of the wisest decisions MS have made with the mobile platform is do away from Active-X, even though I am not a fan of M$ by any means , however they have no other plug-in mechanism at the moment to support Adobe flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ability is definitely there for Adobe to implement Flash be it ActiveX or not - that's not the issue.
Getting the plugin out by the early 2011 update deadline is Adobe dependent because they are the ones developing it, not entirely I agree but it is there technology primarily here so a large part of the project depends on them and their roadmap.

JEEtoP said:
The ability is definitely there for Adobe to implement Flash be it ActiveX or not - that's not the issue.
Getting the plugin out by the early 2011 update deadline is Adobe dependent because they are the ones developing it, not entirely I agree but it is there technology primarily here so a large part of the project depends on them and their roadmap.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again, the Adobe Flash support as it is provided in the current non mobile IE is Active-X plug-in, there is no other mechanism, unless Microsoft tells Adobe that they will re-introduce Active-X support or develop a new API Adobe can do nothing.

lqaddict said:
Once again, the Adobe Flash support as it is provided in the current non mobile IE is Active-X plug-in, there is no other mechanism, unless Microsoft tells Adobe that they will re-introduce Active-X support or develop a new API Adobe can do nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not wishing to be rude but I don't think I see your point.
Yes the current non-mobile IE is an ActiveX plugin, I don't see how this directly pertains to Windows Phone 7's situation.
Flash for WP7 is in development, confirmed by Adobe themselves. Whether Microsoft have implemented a version of ActiveX into the new mobile browser or there is another method for Adobe to utilise it is all academic, it is in development. The mechanism is there.
People please tell me if I'm missing something...

Adobe has already said that the reason WinMo6.5 wasn't getting Flash 10.1 was because it was missing needed APIs that WP7 has. So however they are implementing it that sounds like the resources they need are already included in the OS.

JEEtoP said:
Not wishing to be rude but I don't think I see your point.
Yes the current non-mobile IE is an ActiveX plugin, I don't see how this directly pertains to Windows Phone 7's situation.
Flash for WP7 is in development, confirmed by Adobe themselves. Whether Microsoft have implemented a version of ActiveX into the new mobile browser or there is another method for Adobe to utilise it is all academic, it is in development. The mechanism is there.
People please tell me if I'm missing something...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you know what mechanism is there please share

lqaddict said:
If you know what mechanism is there please share
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea

still no hope for this soon?

Flash Mobile has been killed by Adobe...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-11-09/mark-smith-adobe-flash-mobile/51135466/1
No hope, and i don't really want either... just look android, and how laggy the Flash is...
We are all hoping for a future of HTML5.

Microsoft said last year that they fully concertrate on plug GREE internet browsing, thats HTML5. adobe flash makes thing slower, ok it looks better but slower. they have stated that they will bring up an alternative with silverlight in the future... but that was at the end of last year. now we have march...

Strike_Eagle said:
Flash Mobile has been killed by Adobe...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-11-09/mark-smith-adobe-flash-mobile/51135466/1
No hope, and i don't really want either... just look android, and how laggy the Flash is...
We are all hoping for a future of HTML5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I always hear this but I've never experienced problems with flash being laggy on Android, although Android as a whole is laggy
But I agree, it's unnecessary for WP7...HTML5 already is pretty good to me.

Yup it's all HTML5 from here. Even the Metro-style IE10 in Windows 8 won't support it.
Sent from my SGH-i917 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App

there is an adobe flash app in the marketplace, it doesn't look real though. Can anyone confirm that?

japmeet said:
there is an adobe flash app in the marketplace, it doesn't look real though. Can anyone confirm that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the app in the marketplace does the thing and goes around, it "ports" some websites, to wp7 but it is still not flash! and i can only port some websites not every you want that the silly thing. but with silverlight and html5 we must find another way to "flash" because microsoft abandoned flash some time ago... they have full rights to silverlight, to flash they only can have some licenses. silverlight is the homemade alternative from microsoft. and it fits the needs, just look at some games on windows 8 consumer preview, cut the rope and some other as example, they all look like "flash" but have other functions, and suites more to the "low spec" windows 8 metro design. microsoft will that everything goes smooth, if you have to load an flash game 10 seconds or 20. in silverlight you could be allready in the game. my personal website is in flash but i think of moving to html5 and some other elements, that look like flash.
and i dont think flash will ever be on the future windows versions... on mozzila firefox (desktop) maybe, google chrome (desktop) maybe, but on the metro mozzila that is in work they can not build it in.

[Q] Qt on WP7: Possible but why not?

Qt apps work on WinCE. If WP7 is built on top of WinCE, why would Qt apps not be allowed on Win7?
I'm just trying to make sense of it here. Is it an artificial Microsoft restriction for their platform?

Because third-party apps are managed in .NET compact framework. Qt is a C++ framework and thus unmanaged. This is a smart move by MS as it increases system stability and enhances user experience.

leonard2010 said:
Because third-party apps are managed in .NET compact framework. Qt is a C++ framework and thus unmanaged. This is a smart move by MS as it increases system stability and enhances user experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!

discourse said:
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
givin that one of the main reasons that windows mobile 6 and for that matter windows desktop can be unstable is poor quality 3rd party programs i think the move was a very good one, forcing programers to stick to strict controls means they have to develop good software, also givin MS got most of the flak for these crap programs i think it was a good move on their part

at the cost of lower performance and code easily being stolen. MS don't care about developers. Hacking a silverlight app onto CE and calling it a new OS was a terrible shortcut and will cost them in the long run.

It's a matter of time until Microsoft releases a Native Development Kit. In a recent interview Brad Watson from Windows Phone 7 Development team said:
Brad Watson said:
8) What about native SDK? Android got theirs later, should we expect Microsoft to provide a native SDK also, or just forget about it ?
BLW – if by native SDK, you are asking will we allow anyone to run C or C++ unmanaged code on the device, the answer is “not now.” Our primary concern is ensuring that there is a fantastic customer experience on the phone. We recently announced that we have satisfaction rates for the phone at 93%. That’s amazing. We attribute at least some of that to the fact that customers can buy apps that they don’t have to worry will trash their phones, and they don’t have to worry because of the managed platform.
Over time we will certainly relax certain restrictions on the phone, but we cannot compromise the integrity of the phone experience or the marketplace experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft has to release a NDK because the competition has a NDK. Hopefully the competition will have more and more NDK applications (Firefox, Skype) which would make them more appealing to the user.
When such a NDK will be present, Qt (at least lighthouse) will be ported to Windows Phone 7

indiekiduk said:
at the cost of lower performance and code easily being stolen. MS don't care about developers. Hacking a silverlight app onto CE and calling it a new OS was a terrible shortcut and will cost them in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree it's far from the entirely new OS we were promised I very much doubt it will cost them in the long run. They have provided a OS experience that is second to none, this is all because of the limitations they have put in place.
I would expect the platform to open up somewhat for the next wave of [higher-end] devices giving existing users an iOS-like experience where you can certainly upgrade to utilize multitasking and all that jazz but it will cost you some of the current smoothness of the UX.
The fact that .Net assemblies are easily decompiled into fully working Visual Studio projects hasn't been a huge problem on the desktop and as obfuscating tools become better and better I see no reason why it should lead to a problem on the mobile platform either. Looking thru some of the recent marketplace apps they are all but decipherable for the average developer. Also, as more and more processing moves to the cloud it becomes less and less of a problem - most startups are neither willing not capable of mirroring your closed-source/protected backend services.

The missing NDK is not the sole reason. The OS IS different. As others have pointed out, quite some GDI stuff is just not there, or doesn't do anything. So, Qt would probably just not start. And as there will never be (as MS said) (official) OpenGL drivers on WP7 you can't switch the backend.
And there has to be already some kind of NDK, as e.g. Navigon Select is a semi-native application and it is not created by OEMs.

Hades32 said:
The missing NDK is not the sole reason. The OS IS different. As others have pointed out, quite some GDI stuff is just not there, or doesn't do anything. So, Qt would probably just not start. And as there will never be (as MS said) (official) OpenGL drivers on WP7 you can't switch the backend.
And there has to be already some kind of NDK, as e.g. Navigon Select is a semi-native application and it is not created by OEMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They say IE9 will have accelerated graphics support, which I presume is based on Direct3D. For WinPhone7 Qt needs a Direct3D backend, which should work on all WinPhone7 devices.
Qt should have the same capabilities of IE9, which AFAIK is not written in managed code.
Qt could also use Google's angleproject which should help in translating "OpenGL ES 2.0 API calls to DirectX 9 API calls".

Since this is a discussion thread, this is going in WP7 General.
~~Tito~~

It will simply not happen. It's that easy. (Not w/o homebrew that is)

By not allowing Qt on WP7, Microsoft and Nokia have just shot themselves in the foot. Instead of offering a smooth migration path for the millions of Nokia users and devs, they've basically alienated the entire community. WP7 is also losing out on thousands of high quality applications like Angry Birds for Symbian^3 and MeeGo that was developed using Nokia's Qt SDK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS1dwYmKMjs

discourse said:
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good luck hacking Qt into it.
Using .NET also increases Security.
WP7 doens't need Qt, and Microsoft should do whatever it can to stop Nokia from putting Qt in WP7.
Those reasons aren't lame, unless you're missing the portion of you brain that controls logic.

discourse said:
By not allowing Qt on WP7, Microsoft and Nokia have just shot themselves in the foot. Instead of offering a smooth migration path for the millions of Nokia users and devs, they've basically alienated the entire community. WP7 is also losing out on thousands of high quality applications like Angry Birds for Symbian^3 and MeeGo that was developed using Nokia's Qt SDK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS1dwYmKMjs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's much easier to develop for WP7 than it is for Symbian/Qt. I don't think the developers will have much of an issue with it. They didn't shoot themselves in the foot, you people just AREN'T developers, and don't understand it.
You know you're talking to clueless people when Angry Birds is the epitome o fa high quality application to them.
Cause you cannot develop Angry Birds in XNA, and you seriously believe porting Angry Birds to WP7 will involve nothing other than a few code line changes and a recompilation?
Give me a break.
I wish Microsoft had partnered with SE or something. Nokia's fanbase are more bat**** crazy over these pet projects than the Android people.

Qt will continue to be the development framework for Symbian and Nokia will use Symbian for further devices; continuing to develop strategic applications in Qt for Symbian platform and encouraging application developers to do the same. With 200 million users worldwide and Nokia planning to sell around 150 million more Symbian devices, Symbian still offers unparalleled geographical scale for developers.
Extending the scope of Qt further will be our first MeeGo-related open source device, which we plan to ship later this year. Though our plans for MeeGo have been adapted in light of our planned partnership with Microsoft, that device will be compatible with applications developed within the Qt framework and so give Qt developers a further device to target.

Bye-Bye Adobe Mobile Flash

In an abrupt about-face in its mobile software strategy, Adobe will soon cease developing its Flash Player plug-in for mobile browsers, according to an e-mail sent to Adobe partners on Tuesday evening.
And with that e-mail flash, Adobe has signaled that it knows, as Steve Jobs predicted, the end of the Flash era on the web is coming soon.
The e-mail, obtained and first reported on by ZDNet, says that Adobe will no longer continue to “adapt Flash Player for mobile devices to new browser, OS version or device configurations,” instead focusing on alternative application packaging programs and the HTML5 protocol.
“Our future work with Flash on mobile devices will be focused on enabling Flash developers to package native apps with Adobe AIR for all the major app stores,” the quoted e-mail says.
In the past, Adobe has released software tools for mobile developers that create a single platform programmers can use to make applications that work across three major mobile platforms: Android, iOS and the BlackBerry OS. While it’s seemingly easier than learning all of the native languages for each operating system, some developers have claimed a loss in app performance when coding in a non-native language that then gets translated into other languages.
The move indicates a massive backpedaling on Adobe’s part, a company who championed its Flash platform in the face of years of naysaying about its use on mobile devices. Despite Flash’s near ubiquity across desktop PCs, many in the greater computing industry, including, famously, Apple Computer, have denounced the platform as fundamentally unstable on mobile browsers, and an intense battery drain. In effect, Flash’s drawbacks outweigh the benefits on mobile devices.
Flash became a dominant desktop platform by allowing developers to code interactive games, create animated advertisements and deliver video to any browser that had the plugin installed, without having to take into account the particulars of any given browser. However, with the development of Javascript, CSS, and HTML5, which has native support for video, many web developers are turning away from Flash, which can be a resource hog even on the most advanced browsers.
Apple made its biggest waves in the case against Flash in April of last year, when Steve Jobs penned a 1,500-word screed against the controversial platform, describing it as a technology of the past. Jobs and Apple disliked the platform so intensely, it has since been barred from use on all iOS devices.
Despite attempts to breathe life into Flash on other mobile devices — namely, Android and BlackBerry OS — Adobe has failed to deliver a consistently stable version of the platform on a smartphone or tablet. In WIRED’s testing of the BlackBerry PlayBook in April, Flash use caused the browser to crash on a consistent basis. And when Flash was supposed to come to tablets with Motorola’s Xoom, Adobe was only able to provide an highly unstable Beta version of Flash to ship with the flagship Android device.
“Adobe has lost so much credibility with the community that I’m hoping they are bought by someone else that can bring some stability and eventually some credibility back to the Flash Platform,” wrote software developer Dan Florio in a blog post on Wednesday morning.
The drastic reversal in Adobe’s mobile plans comes in the wake of the company cutting 750 jobs on Tuesday, a move prompted by what Adobe labeled “corporate restructuring.”
An Adobe representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/adobe-kills-mobile-flash/

As a end user as long as all the current flash sites convert to HTML5 , nobody will care?

metaldood said:
As a end user as long as all the current flash sites convert to HTML5 , nobody will care?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. But I haven't seen anything about them discontinuing flash altogether, just mobile. In which case developers will still be using flash for desktop browsing, putting mobile users SOL. So is mobile flash discontinuation enough for developers to convert all of their flash content to HTML5? Guess we'll have to wait and see..