Several readers blamed Adobe for the problem, criticizing its products and history with mobile Flash. "Steigdg1" wrote: "I don't think Adobe has the capability to develop a mobile application. All of their applications have grown incredibly resource-intensive; each version takes twice as long to load as the previous one as it loads up hundreds of DLLs, which eats up the entire resources of the computer. They seem to have no idea how to dynamically load just the necessary parts of a program. I hate Apple almost as much, but I am pulling for them to supplant Adobe on this one."
And "jragosta" blasted Adobe on mobile Flash: "Three years ago, Apple introduced the iPhone. Adobe promised Flash 'real soon now.' It's repeated the promise over and over. Today, still nothing from Adobe that works on any mobile device. It's not just the iPhone. There's no full version of Flash on Symbian, Android, WebOS, Windows Mobile, or iPhone OS. How is that Apple's fault? Even the vaunted Flash 10.1 is only in beta. Apple couldn't have it on the iPhone even if they wanted. More important, Adobe says the minimum requirement for Flash 10.1 is an 800MHz A8 processor -- so it wouldn't work on the iPhone anyway. Even if Adobe does release it, and even if it works well on supported hardware (which doesn't look too likely from published reports), less than 1 percent of smartphones have hardware robust enough for Flash today -- even if Adobe does meet its latest timeline."
InfoWorld reader "sleepygeek" had similar sentiments: "Adobe hasn't got a viable mobile product anyway. That's because it has failed to develop one. Beneath the bombast, Adobe knows a usable, secure product is still a long, long way off."
Reader "mrrtmrrt" was scathing about the poor quality of the iPhone app export tool in Flash Pro CS5 (the export tool Apple banned shortly before Flash CS5's release): "Have you actually tried the Flash to iPhone Exporter in CS5? It's very poor quality code, doesn't support dozens of iPhone OS features (like copy and paste, for crying out loud!), can't run against the latest iPhone OS dev betas, and basically demonstrates that Adobe has failed to deliver yet again. Apple was absolutely right to ban such an execrable product -- a prime example of lowest common denominator cookie cutter code generator that would drag down the whole iPhone platform. Adobe should be ashamed."
And Slashdot reader "s.p. oneil" lamented his experience writing Flash code: "From a developer's perspective, programming in Flash is like programming with half a language that only has half a runtime library. That wouldn't be so bad if it was fun to program in like some of the more modern scripting languages, but it's not. Regarding performance, I found that the only way to make Flash code perform well is to write spaghetti code."
Slashdot reader "DJRumpy" provided a calm defense of Apple's anti-Flash position: "Apple and Flash-haters in general have very real arguments against the use of Flash (for the record, as to performance, if Flash improved in that arena, I wouldn't see an issue from that side of the argument; I could simply make the choice to use or not to use). It is proprietary, it encompasses an framework within itself, and it is out of Apple's control. If Apple were to allow Flash 'apps' on the iPhone, and Flash introduced a security vulnerability across such a large scope of applications (and you know there would eventually be thousands of such apps), Apple would be totally at the mercy of Adobe, which has a terrible track record when it comes to security. In such an instance, it would be Apple who suffered the scorn, not Adobe. Why would any sane person want to put themselves into that situation, when they obviously do not need to? The lack of Flash has arguably not hurt iPhone sales in any significant way."