I agree with both of you. Flash is a necessary evil on the Web. Well, okay, not EVIL, but abused by many.

I think what’s happening is that Apple is using its “We support the standards” as its defense against using Flash. While Flash is a de facto standard, it is not an Official Standard.

Either Apple really doesn’t like Flash, or they want Adobe to make it a Web standard.

MHO

Brett,

I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, the fact of life is that it is used for such things and, if you want to access “all the web”, it is imperative that a device have Flash functionality.

@Richard,

Flash can be cool, but it is overused, and compromises UI standards, performance, and stability. If Flash is required for basic website functions, there is no excuse. The problem is poor site design.

Flash ads are such an annoyance that there is a category of system enhancement known as a Flash blocker.

Websites that require users to install Flash in order to view their gratuitously jazzed up content deserve to lose viewership (as do as sites optimized only for Internet Explorer).

dfs,

A good and fair observation about the choice of service providers. Perhaps someday Apple will spread things around. For the moment I can only assume that AT&T must be making one heck of a deal with Apple in order to keep the iPhone exclusive.

I really do wish Steve would put his ego aside and get Flash capability on the phone. There are simply too many web sites which use Flash for basic functions (buttons & etc) that you can not access them with an iPhone. There are other things that Apple should consider in the “next generation” iPhone, but Flash needs to be number one.

Cheers!

. As usual, the computer press fails to Get It. They will do things like compare the size of screens, debate the merits of the touch-screen keyboard versus the real thing, and so forth, as if these various smart phones are going head-to-head on a level playing field. Not so. the iPhone, like the iPod, is a device the front end of an entire system: a device, reasonably nifty in itstself, offering access to a large and compelling library of apps or music (depending on the device in question), via a slick delivery system (iTunes). Until a competitor can bring a equally effective system to market there’s no comparison at all. You just can’t compare a smart phone with 5000 or more available apps to one where you can get maybe 30. Unless, just maybe, you can offer a smart phone that is light years ahead of the iPhone in some other respect, and that just ain’t so. Just putting out a device that is equally good, or nearly so, doesn’t cut it, and you can’t kid customers into thinking otherwise. On the other hand, there’s a second kind of comparison to be made between the iPhone and its rivals where the comparison is not so clear -cut: part of a customer’s choice depends on the quality of of the device and the associated system. But part depends on his evaluation of the carrier service to which he has to subscribe to get it. I’m afraid I can see some purchasers opting for a rival product just because they prefer some other service to AT&T, or locked into a contract with one, that’s  a wholly rational and justifiable decision. It’s a shame we live in a world where this particular factor has to enter into the equation.