Via heise: The free Flash Player plug-in for Pocket Internet Explorer is no longer available. Instead, Macromedia is now selling a stand-alone player for 500 US dollars (or 570 Euros in Germany — almost 90 Euros more, unless Macromedia is running into some weird customs issues for whatever reason — , intended for “developers and [content?] providers”, who then in turn can, it appears, provide players for free for their customers.
Another good example of how proprietary formats can rape you. The only major non-Macromedia player that supports Flash that I know of is QuickTime, and that doesn’t exist for Pocket PC to begin with.
Well, dear “developers and providers”, if only you had used a certain open standard instead, we wouldn’t be having this problem. Maybe, though, it gives people more food for thought when pondering whether to ‘enhance’ their sites with Flash content.
Update: John Dowdell of Macromedia points to an explanation by a colleague of his.
The gist of it:
Because of changes to the operating system and hardware of new devices, we cannot guarantee that Flash Player 6 for Pocket PC will work consistently when playing Flash content.
These inconsistencies and limitations exist on noncertified devices, many of which come from OEMs producing new Pocket PC devices.
Rather than continuing to deal with resulting support issues, Macromedia decided to encourage (if not somewhat force) vendors to provide Flash Player on their devices, dealing with support themselves.
Very understandable now. Curiously, if I was able to get this information (by John posting in my blog) without even asking for it, why was heise not? Doesn’t bode well for traditional journalism.
Thanks again, John, for clarification.
Update 2: Even better, Macromedia has decided to provide the 2003 version of the player for free — again, without support, for reasons stated. Read John’s comment for more information.
Excellent response.
Others' Thoughts
Comment on October 4th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
For what it’s worth, the “why” of it is sort of complex, because of the various partnerships, from what I understand… I think Bill Perry may have more info up on it soon, and I’d defer to him for the best word. http://flashdevices.net/
But here’s a key point: No consumer should ever have to install something onto their pocket device. It’s more work than with a computer. Having an installable version for developer use is just a stop-gap measure… the goal is to have SWF rendering be a key feature of any new shipping device. We’re not there yet, obviously, but the progress towards that goal is strong….
If you can wait just a little bit, then I think we’ll have better context on this soon… good?
jd/mm
Comment on October 5th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
I’m sorry, who uses PocketPC again? Even more emphatically, who uses PocketPC to view Flash?
Comment on October 5th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Hey John,
thanks for your response. Now, I can understand the “simplicity” point of having developers pre-install Flash on devices, rather than requiring customers to install it on their own, manually.
Why not, though, give customers a choice? Have pre-install contracts with developers as well as letting users download the player. I would understand if it is a support / liability issue.
Comment on October 7th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Update: Bill Perry has a group-approved message here: http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/devices/articles/fp6pocketpcremoval.html
There’s also a feedback link at the bottom of the document, if issues remain, clarifications needed. (I don’t feel qualified to extemporize further on the story myself.)
Good…?
jd/mm
Comment on October 7th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Yes, that’s perfect. Thanks!
Comment on October 12th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
Update: We’ve figured out a middle path — those uncertified PocketPC systems can still do a free download of the 2003 Player, but we won’t be able to provide any support for such systems. Bill Perry has more details here: http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/devices/articles/fp6pocketpcremoval.html http://www.flashdevices.net/2005/10/we-listened-flash-player-6-for-pocket.html
I’m sorry for the hassle last week, but does this now seem like a better situation to you…?
jd/mm
Your Own Thoughts
I'd love to hear your input. Just try to stick to a few rules:
Before you comment for the first time (or, after you have deleted cookies), you will have to answer a little challenge to prove that you are not a spammer.
Comments are written in Markdown.