I still think that by putting all flash movies automatically to the low quality mode by default, would help most of the 'normal' flash stuff like banners and such. And for the movies, it would help if nokia could provide instuctions on how to make an opera plugin. Then someone (perhaps serge) could make a mplayer opener plugin for opening youtube videos and such in mplayer with touch of a button on the web page.

just my 2 (euro) cents.

I fully agree benny and was just thinking the same myself. For the most part Flash is an *annoyance* for me and I'd just as soon its use was drastically minimized. I'm tired of large intrusive ads that fly out over web pages and don't allow themselves to be closed. I'm tired of cute animations that wander all over the page, taking their sweet time to settle into a fixed ad frame. Enabling newer Flash technology on the N800 will be a double-edged sword. Personally I'd rather see the money and compatibility efforts go into java, ajax and asp.

I agree with texrat and I never use flash on my 770. But if there would be a movie only plugin (open the movie in mplayer), that would be just perfect for me. No annoying flash stuff, but fast movies (and fullscreen) when you want to watch them.

More than a month ago, I sent a few emails to Adobe's Macromedia Flash Developers Kit folks and never got anything back. I told them specifically what I wanted: A Macromedia Flash 7 SDK to port to the Nokia 770.

I got nothing back from them. Absolutely nothing.

Then the N800 comes out with a built-in Flash 7 port.

I'm pretty much certain that Nokia and Adobe have a licensing agreement already in place which precludes letting the public have a crack at expanding the 770/800's capabilities. Certainly not an open source solution...

Let's put this into perspective: Is there a device with a comparable CPU that actually displays Flash video FASTER than the N800?

Not sure you're allowed "comparable" if you specify CPU. I think you have to allow for anything in the same price or size. If Nokia put its money in the screen and not the CPU, and somebody else chose the reverse, you've got to compare the results across the board.

But anyway, yours is not a question I know the answer to. It certainly seems like I have read remarks asserting that in various forums elsewhere. But maybe it was video in some other form being spoken of. Or maybe it was Flash Lite on a cellphone.

I've been saying for months, "Ha! The UMPC is so-o-o expensive compared to the internet tablet." Hadn't you better tell us straight out that the Flash side of the internet is better on a UMPC than an N800?

At least I'll be prepared when someone sneers, "Which 'internet' is your tablet for again? The non-moving 'internet'? The mono-media 'internet'?"

A 320MHz ARM processor should be well up for the level of processing needed for Flash games and, almost certainly, video (e.g. YouTube).

I believe Flash 9 implements a JIT on x86 to get its new performance, unfortunately that just further complicates an ARM port.

Ari Jaaksi has today (25 Jan) blogged about updated Flash and Opera:

Ah!

I would pick out this part of his blog as the salient part —:
Given that Flash is the most ubiquitous plugin on the internet, that the adoption of Flash occurs at 4x that of IE7, and YouTube's role in things (owned by Google, don't forget), I'd decode this as Flash Lite, Flash 8 or Flash 9 is on the way already.

Added later: I didn't get to the comments till late afternoon. Someone mentions there that Opera 9 for devices is out. Is that the brilliant browser?

Can someone answer why free Flash updates are available and downloadable for OSX, Windows, Windows CE and not ITOS?

Does Apple and Microsoft have to pay license fees to Adobe to have them provide the latest Flash plugins?

Why didn't Nokia provide a version of Opera that would allow for plug-ins (or maybe it does and I haven't found any)?