Ok. I don't understand why this thing is considered anything less than a small computer. For example, I've got a big old computer with a 300 Mhz processor and 128 MB of RAM running Linux. As a end-user Adobe allows, even wants me to upgrade to the latest version of the Flash player. Yet, after some reading I've started to get the impression that Adobe is tying specific versions of the Flash player to specific versions of "small computers". I wonder if they are requiring that Nokia pay them a royalty for putting the player on the hardware. If so, I doubt that I could ever upgrade the software.

Also, I've gotten the impression that Nokia is gaining all the benefits from the open-source community yet they are also tying the hardware to specific versions of the OS. Is this true?

For me, it would suck to spend $400 on the computer, another $80 on a couple of memory sticks, $40 on a spare battery, and say $60 on a hardcase only to have Nokia release a new computer in two years that does support the coolest versions of Flash X and maemo X. It doesn't seem right to have to purchase a slightly upgraded piece of hardware to get software updated. Personally, the freedom to upgrade the operating system and the world's most prevalent browser plugin are as important as all of the other features. Without that freedom, it would be hard to justify purchasing this small computer.