Comments on: Flash 10.1 – installations/updates for mobile http://www.biskero.org/flash-10-1-%e2%80%93-installationsupdates-for-mobile-4651?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=flash-10-1-%25e2%2580%2593-installationsupdates-for-mobile personal blog about mobile technologies, mobile phones, mobile development and Flash Lite Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:58:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: biskero http://www.biskero.org/flash-10-1-%e2%80%93-installationsupdates-for-mobile-4651/comment-page-1#comment-251388 biskero Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:43:22 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=4651#comment-251388 Ciao Mark, thanks for the information. " ... with the exceptions for security changes", this is one of the issues I was referring to. As you can image it might happen that an update is required by Adobe/OEM and developers are in the middle. Also, AIR Mobile strategy is another topic which we will debate on other posts! For Flash Lite 4, it would be great to have more information when is the time, so that we can plan in WURFL. Alessandro Ciao Mark,

thanks for the information.
” … with the exceptions for security changes”, this is one of the issues I was referring to. As you can image it might happen that an update is required by Adobe/OEM and developers are in the middle.

Also, AIR Mobile strategy is another topic which we will debate on other posts!

For Flash Lite 4, it would be great to have more information when is the time, so that we can plan in WURFL.

Alessandro

]]> By: Mark Doherty http://www.biskero.org/flash-10-1-%e2%80%93-installationsupdates-for-mobile-4651/comment-page-1#comment-251387 Mark Doherty Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:28:05 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=4651#comment-251387 Hi Alessandro, The upgrade and install paths are not restricted by the carriers on the whole, there is a move away from this model. With the devices that support 10.1 we've found that it is the OEM that controls 99% of the distribution. I don't expect problems here and the examples that I provided should be consistent with users expectations for their device. Our own rules around backwards compatibility will remain watertight, with the exceptions for security changes. It is unheard of for developers to have to recompile their code for the web with Flash Player. By the way, we may still need WURFL for FL4 should it be implemented in standalone mode :-) Hi Alessandro,

The upgrade and install paths are not restricted by the carriers on the whole, there is a move away from this model. With the devices that support 10.1 we’ve found that it is the OEM that controls 99% of the distribution. I don’t expect problems here and the examples that I provided should be consistent with users expectations for their device.

Our own rules around backwards compatibility will remain watertight, with the exceptions for security changes. It is unheard of for developers to have to recompile their code for the web with Flash Player.

By the way, we may still need WURFL for FL4 should it be implemented in standalone mode :-)

]]>