http://thenokiablog.com/2010/12/30/n...r-amazon-gift/

see this nokia? we deserve flash 10.1 so get your asses to work pronto!

WHAT ? Adobe makes the final decision, always did, based on certification/distribution/whatever. It controls distribution of all desktop builds, and until very recently, it was Adobe who distributed the Android Flash builds, too (and still does do that for the betas).

To repeat the for the millionth time - where is that public (beta/techpreview/Idontcare) ARM Linux Flash build ?

Which other platforms are you talking about, not counting hacks, previews, announcements, unsanctioned builds, etc ?

Flash has nothing to do with computers, its bastard versions are available on basically anything.

Because TI is not releasing it, that is the problem. Their license is only for hardware OEM manufacturers. Let's say for argument's sake Nokia had the same thing (disclaimer: I have no idea if it does). It still couldn't give it to you as the Adobe T&C specifically forbids it. Back to square one.

jup, try CuteTube.

install hide user agent and then play the desktop version of youtube. you can watch 480p videos

eeeyyyeew - good god I hope not.
I read the Modest docs+etc and it looks like something done on LSD.

There is not one thing a person could do to improve on Modest.
It is one of the most abominably misplanned projects I have seen since
the days of spaghetti code.

Only thing Modest lacks is a few goto statements.
I can think of one...

BTW - before I forget - isn't this the most deplorable thread of 2010 ?

Erm... still no. Adobe handles the port - upon vendor solicitation, they had worked with ARM for processor optimization, tailors the plugin for the platform. Beta testing - view http://labs.adobe.com - is still done by Adobe, once it is "finished" it is released to the vendor/manufacturer for their approval and implementation.

Find where Adobe has stated that they've "done the work" and it's up to Nokia to distribute it. It's been listed in this thread a few times.

What you are proposing is that a 3rd party (Adobe) has the ability to distribute, approve and push into another vendor's OS or app store an application/plugin and they're the ones that certify it... that's totally incorrect. Google approved Adobe AIR, Google approved Flash Player 10.1 - that's after QA testing and the like.

You can keep repeating all you like, there was never a public for ARM. There was a public beta for Windows, Mac, Linux - you know... the operating systems where you can install things as such. How hard is that to understand? You're going at this like the ARM based OS's are not under some form of version control to avoid the diversity that's on x86 based OS's - you know... where people can add, change, modify hardware and the OS. Each and every ARM based OS on the tablets, phones, et al are under the control of somebody else, usually the vendor. And then Adobe has to play by those rules. Everybody does... care to name one plugin that breaks this observation?

Anyway, Adobe does the work, Nokia does the implementation and distribution. Ever care to ask the better question as to where Texas Instruments got their Adobe Flash from?

Which platforms support your verbiage? Don't list Mac, Windows nor Linux. Start there.

Yet on my computer, I'm already running 10.2 beta. But on the "mobile computer" you can't even install a newer version of a plugin, get an updated version of Skype, update or maintain the BME... face it, if it's closed source on Maemo, you're SOL.

TI got it from Adobe. TI has to state that they will not distribute it based on the manufacturer of the handset and OS. Until Nokia gets off their fat arse and says "It's ok to distribute", TI and Adobe can't distribute it.

As it stands, it is unoptimized, ultimately unusable as it stands. Either Nokia needs to work on its implementation better, TI needs to optimize it better for Nokia or Adobe needs to get paid to finish the work that Nokia is unwilling to do.

You've somehow applied open source logic - public betas - and desktop OS - ability to install closed source betas and updates - to this situation.

It just doesn't fit. If you think it does, please show me where this has been allowed in the past. VLC? Silverlight? Skype? Real? Give me a place where updates and/or betas have been installable that affect another piece of software that's tied to the OS - read: browser - that supports your position.

It's not smooth even 1.15Ghz at 360p...i dont' know where you get that idea. Some rare video play okay but most lagging.

i played a few videos in youtube 360p and run well, any times freezes but run well. NOT PERFECT

the perfect dont exist in this world

i never question that the world is perfect...when u said the video is smooth and run smoother w certain profile , i thought u meant every video is smooth...but NOT SO! i tested out w 1.15Ghz and found out that certain videos r smooth and other r not...and still dont know why. i know its not because of bitrate difference or HD because i tested out w 2 of my videos. Both r HD n have the same bitrate and yet one play smooth while the other are not. i know if u can overclock above 1.15Ghz...it'll probably smooth for all videos but it gets too damm hot....so its not a good idea. Even playin under 1.15Ghz gets hot pretty quick.

You're overclocking to 1.15Ghz in an attempt to just play Flash content smoothly? You're clearly voiding warranty in a most unholy objective.