Page 218 of 233 FirstFirst ... 118 168 208213214215216217218219220221222223 228 ... LastLast
Results 4,341 to 4,360 of 4649
  1. #4341  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon no h View Post
    Is flash ever going to make it to the Pre?
    Just like Duke Nukem Forever: "When it's done"
    Just remember: If I helped you, press the thanks button!

    Owner of: Pre Sprint, Pre Telcel, Pre Plus AT&T, Pre 2 Unlocked, Pixi Plus AT&T, and 2 TouchPads (my Pre3 was stolen so it won't appear again here).
    Needs: Veer (anyone?)
    Apps: Subnet Calculator, FreeCam, PhotoFun, NuttyPad (work in progress)
    HomeBrew: meta-doctor and Messaging Plugins collaborator
    Twitter: @cesarneg
  2. Juampizz's Avatar
    Posts
    1 Posts
    Global Posts
    4 Global Posts
    #4342  
    Sorry Adobe Flash Player is not avalilable from Adobe.com for your device's operating system or browser.


    View the system requirements for supported operating systems and browsers >


    What does it means? what was all those promises !! where is flash??
  3. flea's Avatar
    Posts
    163 Posts
    Global Posts
    170 Global Posts
    #4343  
    It means I told you so!

    Many of you laughed or gawked at my rants 1 2 about the idea of flash on this device. Some of you actually inquired 'why, whats your reasoning... etc' and I did my best to explain it. Now you are all witnessing it for yourselves.

    My prediction, flash will never come to the 1st generation webOS devices [pre(+)/pixi(+)] rather, Adobe will try to regain your trust with a flash launch on 2nd gen webOS devices.

    The truth is really this, flash is a crazy resource hog, this palm pre will choke if you try to use flash the way you think you can.

    Ok, even if you dispute the last statement (ask a droid owner why they dont have flash)... lets at least consider another major point for why flash should just go away....

    Like I stated almost a year ago, Adobe doesnt follow any web standards, there is no validation of code, there is no 'open source community' (that was a PRPRPR $stunt$) $and$ $being$ $that$ $its$ $proprietary$, $there$'$s$ $nothing$ $legal$ $you$ $can$ $do$ $to$ $demand$ $it$ $on$ $your$ $device$.
    If they choose to lie to you about a release date and never up-hold the promise, well, perhaps you should be considering your loyalty to this non-standard binary that tainted the web like cancer.

    I told it early on, that html5 would surpass flash for reliability, portability and performance... some of you deny its existence but lets be real, we've had snippets of published html5 draft code for a year now - AND ITS NOT EVEN A FULLY PUBLISHED SPEC yet!

    Point: html5 delivered ahead of schedule, adobe splashing their hands in the kiddy pool.
  4. #4344  
    ...after Adobe announced going back to work on Flash for Apple:

    Great News for Developers (Adobe Featured Blogs)

    I know adobe still there states to bring support for Palm/HP, but having these Palm statements it does seem Adobe isn't in a hurry to release it on webOS:
    Palm: 'we don't know what the hold-up is' on mobile Flash | Electronista
  5. #4345  
    i think a stock - not overclocked pre / pre + can not run flash with out getting bogged down // if you go to their site even for the android phones it states that the min processor speed is 550mhz -- i would not expect it to ever come out for these devices --this is what the change in posting when you go to their website from the phone would seem to indicate
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rob Chilcott

    Twitter @robchilcott
    pre2
    " I am only a stupid electrician after all"

    My house is a webOS house
    My pre 2, Touchpad 32g
    Wife Pixi, touchpad 32gb
    Daughter -- my old pre+
    of course my 16 year old son has and droid incredible but i think i remeber finding him on the porch
  6. #4346  
    This video is posted more times on youtube then Beyounce's "stick a rang on it". With over 200 pages in this thread, I bet its already been mentioned here a few times too.



    when your done watching this video and you realize it still aint possible,
    you end up appreciating this next video.


    it is what it is... I like the pre, its OS is awsome even if it will always be under developed. Theres always hope that the next model is 50% bigger in size and with better hardware. KUDOS to you Web OS Team.
    We dont need to compete with our more affluent friends who must have the best of everything, we have a linux based cell phone for bits sake. Flash content is over rated besides, and for that matter so too is honesty. After all this phone did some really cool things the first month I had it, until I realized my batt lasted less then half a day. For now I just have to remember to turn off my GPS when I am not using it, and always know where the nearest power source is. So what my phone is always home charging while everyone else is happily useing thiers, I know I have the better phone. If you do have to make a phone call, folks are always too happy to let you borrow thier phone when you own a palm pre.

    Yes, I bought some home brew apps and sure had some fun with lighty. As the OS updated and things got broken, I simply gave up the notion that I too could one day, be a developer for this project. I am just looking forward to the next palm device and hope it has a metal detector app so I can use it to hunt meteorites with all my smarter phone owning friends.

    BTW, we also have the better forum !
    Which way to the java script for dummies thread ?
  7. mk3
    mk3 is offline
    mk3's Avatar
    Posts
    575 Posts
    Global Posts
    622 Global Posts
    #4347  
    Has anyone tried fooling the Adobe website to thinking the Pre is an Android phone? Sort of like the patch to make websites see the Pre as an iPhone.

    Their website lists the following as Supported devices:
    OEM: Google
    Device Model: Nexus One
    Feedback & Feature Requests | Palm USA

    "Abracadabra Holmes"
    -Cal Naughton, Jr.
  8. #4348  
    We need to get RelaseMyPre to make another masked video to get Adobe, HP, Palm, and the carriers to hurry up with the release of Flash for webOS.
  9. #4349  
    Quote Originally Posted by mk3 View Post
    Has anyone tried fooling the Adobe website to thinking the Pre is an Android phone? Sort of like the patch to make websites see the Pre as an iPhone.

    Their website lists the following as Supported devices:
    OEM: Google
    Device Model: Nexus One
    Don't even bother trying this. Even if you successfully fool the adobe website, you will be redirected to the Android Marketplace. You won't fool it.

    Just because Android and WebOS are both Linux based, the similarity ends there. Even if you were to somehow get ahold of the Android pkg, and convert it to an ipk for install on WebOS, you'd break WebOS installing it.

    If you really want to undertake a project, it'd go something (but not exactly) like this - you could get the Flash install pkg for android 2.2, take it apart, rewrite it, and recompile it into an ipk for WebOS installation. Check out PhoneGap and Ares before heading down this path.

    Someone's already done this for Fruity's iOS, but remember, Adobe owns all rights to Flash, so you'd be breaking the law by attempting this hack, and for what purpose? End result would be an illegal hack that would bog down, maybe even crash your Pre or Pixi and you facing possible jail time after Adobe hunts you down.
    Last edited by TopTongueBarry; 09/11/2010 at 02:54 PM.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and donít necessarily represent AT&Tís positions, strategies or opinions.
  10. #4350  
    Quote Originally Posted by TopTongueBarry View Post
    End result would be an illegal hack that would bog down, maybe even crash your Pre or Pixi and you facing possible jail time after Adobe hunts you down.
    I don't think it would be breaking the law unless distributed...... then again I am a big believer of end users having rights and if you legally "own" the product, you can do what you want with it. So my comment is NOT based on any legal basis.
  11. #4351  
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolVWLover View Post
    I don't think it would be breaking the law unless distributed...... then again I am a big believer of end users having rights and if you legally "own" the product, you can do what you want with it. So my comment is NOT based on any legal basis.
    Neither is mine. All we know for sure is that Adobe owns the rights to Flash.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and donít necessarily represent AT&Tís positions, strategies or opinions.
  12. flea's Avatar
    Posts
    163 Posts
    Global Posts
    170 Global Posts
    #4352  
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolVWLover View Post
    I don't think it would be breaking the law unless distributed...... then again I am a big believer of end users having rights and if you legally "own" the product, you can do what you want with it. So my comment is NOT based on any legal basis.
    clearly you haven't read the eula / license agreement

    Adobe Flash Player 10.1 (PDF, 3.3M)


    "
    4.5 No Modification or Reverse Engineering. You shall not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You shall not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software. If you are located in the European Union, please refer to the additional terms at the end of this agreement under the header “European Union Provisions,” in Section 16.
    "
    Last edited by flea; 09/11/2010 at 03:17 PM.
  13. #4353  
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolVWLover View Post
    I don't think it would be breaking the law unless distributed...... then again I am a big believer of end users having rights and if you legally "own" the product, you can do what you want with it. So my comment is NOT based on any legal basis.
    But you don't legally 'own' this software. You download and use it for free in accordance with the Terms and Conditions you agree to when installing. If you read through those terms you will see that you are agreeing that your use is "...solely for the installation and Use of the unmodified Software on the Authorized Operating Systems, in the manner and for the purposes described in the Documentation...". Adobe is very clear in the EULA this is their Intellectual property and they have all control over it.

    But I'm sure that if the webOS community were as large as the other OS's we'd have seen a hack for this already.
  14. #4354  
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    clearly you haven't read the eula / license agreement
    Clearly you didn't read my post...... and yeah obviously I haven't read the agreement for a piece of software that is not made for anything I own....


    Regardless (since you want to make this into a legal argument) a single person modifying a piece of freely distributed software to meet there specific needs and not redistributing it to anyone would NEVER end up in court. So the specific "legality" of it is null. I would compare this to P|C not hosting the developer released Dr.s (like the ones many used before 1.4.5 was dropped in the US), but allowing people to discuss them and provide the links to them via private message..... I would actually argue that the action of inaction in that case would have more legal standing is HP/Palm wanted to do it than the case of a user modifying legally owned software for their own use (where it does not cause financial loss for any party).

    BTW, since you wanted to go here, my opinion (like I said in my first post OPINION), is based on the fact that I morally am on the side against things like the movie companies that attempt to tell me I cannot reproduce a copy of a DVD I PAID for for my own use (nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I defended actual piracy). I personally believe EULA's have overstepped their bounds due to the growth of technology and the excessive fear of losing control of copyright. In the end, our country has become over litigated to a point where every company is so paranoid about being sued (or out lawyered out of their copyright protection) that they have created these EULAs that attempt to cripple the end user from actually using the product.


    Thank you /Rant
  15. #4355  
    Quote Originally Posted by HelloNNNewman View Post
    But you don't legally 'own' this software. You download and use it for free in accordance with the Terms and Conditions you agree to when installing. If you read through those terms you will see that you are agreeing that your use is "...solely for the installation and Use of the unmodified Software on the Authorized Operating Systems, in the manner and for the purposes described in the Documentation...". Adobe is very clear in the EULA this is their Intellectual property and they have all control over it.

    But I'm sure that if the webOS community were as large as the other OS's we'd have seen a hack for this already.
    Once again, see my previous post..... I agree with you, but technically one could say the agreement is broken if you install the software on a modified device.... Ohhh and as we all know breaking a end user agreement isn't always something that becomes a legal issue. At the least it would be a gray area.

    Say one owns a droid phone that doesn't (from android) have the software that supports flash.... they update the phone with a hacked copy of the OS so they now have an OS that supports falsh.... they are technically breaking the adobe agreement because the phone they are using isn't supported by the agreement between adobe and google/android. Like I said it all goes to over litigation and can be twisted in many ways, because every EULA is in some way associated with another EULA. To say an individual doing this (like I said in my original post for the use of the individual not for distribution) is hardly a good court case.

    For anyone wanting to argue that it makes a good court case, most of the things, most of us are doing to our phones on this site technically could be said to violate an agreement with Palm.... I'm just saying is all, we have to be realistic.
  16. flea's Avatar
    Posts
    163 Posts
    Global Posts
    170 Global Posts
    #4356  
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolVWLover View Post
    Clearly you didn't read my post...... and yeah obviously I haven't read the agreement for a piece of software that is not made for anything I own....


    Regardless (since you want to make this into a legal argument) a single person modifying a piece of freely distributed software to meet there specific needs and not redistributing it to anyone would NEVER end up in court. So the specific "legality" of it is null. I would compare this to P|C not hosting the developer released Dr.s (like the ones many used before 1.4.5 was dropped in the US), but allowing people to discuss them and provide the links to them via private message..... I would actually argue that the action of inaction in that case would have more legal standing is HP/Palm wanted to do it than the case of a user modifying legally owned software for their own use (where it does not cause financial loss for any party).

    BTW, since you wanted to go here, my opinion (like I said in my first post OPINION), is based on the fact that I morally am on the side against things like the movie companies that attempt to tell me I cannot reproduce a copy of a DVD I PAID for for my own use (nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I defended actual piracy). I personally believe EULA's have overstepped their bounds due to the growth of technology and the excessive fear of losing control of copyright. In the end, our country has become over litigated to a point where every company is so paranoid about being sued (or out lawyered out of their copyright protection) that they have created these EULAs that attempt to cripple the end user from actually using the product.


    Thank you /Rant

    No one on this forum dislikes Flash more than I do. That being said, no matter what your opinions of it are, its reality and their software / support model of this product is atrocious. However, conjuring up ways to circumvent their legal binding agreement (on a public forum) is ridiculous... especially after self-admitting that you have not read the EULA.

    Instead of trying to hack the matrix to get flash, why isnt everyone else excited about the already-present features of HTML5 on our phones?

    The date[s] for Flash as promised have come and gone, THEY DONT CARE ABOUT YOU so move on and enjoy an open alternative that is already available. Adobe simply proved my point by failing up deliver the product they swore would perform on our devices... oh well.

    Oh, by the way, HP/Palm modifying flash to meet webOS is NOT END USER (WE ARE) Adobe works with palm as a partner ... not a user.

    And yes, if you attempt to reverse engineer any Adobe run-time, you have broken their agreement, no matter if u distributed it or not.
  17. #4357  
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    No one on this forum dislikes Flash more than I do. That being said, no matter what your opinions of it are, its reality and their software / support model of this product is atrocious. However, conjuring up ways to circumvent their legal binding agreement (on a public forum) is ridiculous... especially after self-admitting that you have not read the EULA.

    Instead of trying to hack the matrix to get flash, why isnt everyone else excited about the already-present features of HTML5 on our phones?

    The date[s] for Flash as promised have come and gone, THEY DONT CARE ABOUT YOU so move on and enjoy an open alternative that is already available. Adobe simply proved my point by failing up deliver the product they swore would perform on our devices... oh well.

    Oh, by the way, HP/Palm modifying flash to meet webOS is NOT END USER (WE ARE) Adobe works with palm as a partner ... not a user.

    And yes, if you attempt to reverse engineer any Adobe run-time, you have broken their agreement, no matter if u distributed it or not.

    Uhmm I wish you would have read more.... I wasn't the one even mentioning circumventing the EULA, I actually was just commenting on the legality of someone doing this for their own use. If I had the free time and knowledge to even attempt this..... I would be doing other things with that time and knowledge. Please go back and just read maybe the last page or 2 of this thread, or read ANY of my posts on these forums, I never mentioned any desire to circumvent ANY EULA or other software agreement/policy/etc. I was simply commenting on the legality issue mentioned by another forum member in response to yet another forum member asking about hacking the droid version of flash onto webos.

    Ohhh and where the hell did the hp/palm modifying flash come from??? I never mentioned that. And you keep going back to the EULA, we were talking about LEGALITY not licensing agreements. Did you really read anything I wrote? Or are you just here to bash flash like all of your previous posts in this thread (that I actually did READ)? I have never been one in this thread or anywhere on these forums to ***** about flash, actually since we started getting some decently priced games, I have lil need for flash on my mobile device..... but then again you would know that if you read the posts in the thread you continue to comment on. (THANKS =) )

    So once again, legally speaking, I don't see adobe going after an individual who is using the software that is free in a manor for their own personal use. Could they do it? YES, would it be worth their resources? NO! You really are getting into some bs here, because first adobe would have to find out some individual did this to their own software for their own personal use, something that would be hard to do without obtaining the users phone (or data records, etc). So to even get to that point, you would have to have adobe going to the courts to get the law to take away a single users phone based on the concept that they may have modified a free piece of software for their own personal use..... are you with me yet? Violating an EULA doesn't always mean you are doing something "illegal" you are breaking the terms of a "contract" with a company. One last time this all goes to the over litigation of this country, just because you can sue someone doesn't mean it's right..... Ohhh and not every breach of a EULA is TECHNICALLY illegal, it may mean you no longer get support, or you lose your warranty, it DOES NOT always merit ACTUAL legal action.
  18. #4358  
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Instead of trying to hack the matrix to get flash, why isnt everyone else excited about the already-present features of HTML5 on our phones?
    I'm excited.
    But please tell me, so I dont have to read this exhausting thread for details, where I can find them.

    There are as many words in this thread as there are in any EULA.
    Most people would rather run only quality software and not want to hack, crack or recompile for hardware they didnt even build in the first place.
    Running Apache for windows however, is the only exception I've ever allowed myself to make. lol
    Anyway, I believe the powers at be, know we are here, and we should stop speculating about it, stop ranting so much, and as well STOP indicating how simple it all is to circumvent. Although, I too would like to have that Abode person on that youtube video's head on a silver platter, they probly sure dont plan to make an apology video, nor will youtube ever remove it. Nope, for now that video will forever stand as market research. I myself have watched it 10Xs wondering if it is CGI or is it actually running on that pre.
    Its more like watching a magic trick then a courtesy video from Abode for palm pre owners. You've already been branded so, relax, sit back and watch it as many times as you want.
  19. #4359  
    Quote Originally Posted by HelloNNNewman View Post
    But you don't legally 'own' this software. You download and use it for free in accordance with the Terms and Conditions you agree to when installing. If you read through those terms you will see that you are agreeing that your use is "...solely for the installation and Use of the unmodified Software on the Authorized Operating Systems, in the manner and for the purposes described in the Documentation...". Adobe is very clear in the EULA this is their Intellectual property and they have all control over it.

    But I'm sure that if the webOS community were as large as the other OS's we'd have seen a hack for this already.
    If I'd known bringing up the "Fruity iOS" hack would start such a "ruckus" in here, I'd never have elaborated after explaining to "mk3": "Don't even bother trying this. Even if you successfully fool the adobe website, you will be redirected to the Android Marketplace. You won't fool it."

    It would have remained nice and quiet in here .... Live and learn .....

    TTB
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and donít necessarily represent AT&Tís positions, strategies or opinions.
  20. #4360  
    It is nice and quite in here,



    except for the thread about "What Would YOU Like to See in webOS 1.5?" by animemom.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions