TechRadar reports Adobe’s firing more shots at Apple regarding Flash on iPhone. The arguments, made via an irritating, patronising ‘skit’ suggest 1) Apple is really stupid because Flash doesn’t run on iPhone, and; 2) Adobe is really great, because it can get Flash to run on iPhone.

However, important points are missed:

• The Mac version of the Flash plug-in sucks balls. It’s the main source of Safari crashes on the Mac desktop, and the sandboxed plug-in still crashes regularly on Snow Leopard. The likelihood is, on the basis of the Mac version, the Flash plug-in could also suck balls on iPhone. Worse, with iPhone being relatively underpowered compared to desktop Macs, a Flash plug-in would wreck Safari’s stability and speed.
• Adobe’s mostly crowing about standalone Flash apps. There’s a whole world of difference between Flash apps on iPhone and Flash working within a browser that has its own overheads. (Note also that Flash apps don’t have access to OS X for iPhone UI components, and so many of them are a mess in terms of interface.)

I very much hope reporters don’t start moaning in unison that since Flash apps run on iPhone, so too should the plug-in—but I’ll bet they will. In the meantime, perhaps if Adobe rewrote its Mac Flash plug-in so it was even remotely comparable to the Windows one, Mac users and Apple itself wouldn’t be quite so hostile towards the technology.

On the 5th, Network World ran the article Three Reasons Why iPhone Won’t Get Adobe Flash. The reasons were: Apple doesn’t want Flash on the iPhone, the iPhone is created so it won’t support Flash (the article cites Apple not allowing plug-ins for mobile Safari), and Apple is betting on a different standard (HTML 5).

Funny that they missed out the most likely reason: Flash on the Mac—specifically the Flash plug-in—sucks.

On Leopard, the Flash plug-in is so unstable that Apple sandboxed browser plug-ins in Snow Leopard’s Safari. Interestingly, I’ve had one Safari crash since upgrading to Snow Leopard, compared to at least one per hour on Leopard. The Flash plug-in process, however, keels over with alarming regularity.

Also, put a PC next to a Mac and run some complex Flash content. Watch in horror as a knackered old PC outperforms a shiny new Mac—something that just doesn’t happen elsewhere.

Apple might be a huge control freak, but it’s proved plenty of times in the past that it will let other companies into its play-pen. However, said companies have to prove themselves worthy. I have no doubt that if the Flash plug-in was an amazing piece of Mac engineering, Apple would—at least now the App Store is hugely successful—allow Adobe to create the equivalent for iPhone and iPod touch. But since the Mac version of the plug-in is such a buggy, sluggish pile of garbage, why would Apple let the Flash plug-in anywhere near the mobile version of Safari, where it could at a stroke create the impression that Apple’s handheld platform and browser are slow, bug-ridden and unstable?

Cnet recently asked is the iPhone hurting AT&T’s brand? The reasoning? Network complaints and AT&T’s general incompetence means iPhone owners are getting terribly angry, and because iPhone is very newsworthy hardware, people report these problems with much gusto.

Quick answer, Cnet: no. The iPhone isn’t hurting AT&T’s brand. The only thing hurting AT&T is AT&T.

See also: O2 and iPhone in the UK. Again, some reports have suggested that ‘poor little O2’ has somehow been suckered into taking on iPhone and that those nasty iPhone users have somehow made the wonderful O2 look rubbish. O2 may have been taken by surprise with high data usage, but to blame Apple or its hardware for O2’s shortcomings is just stupid.

Man, sooner or later, people will look at something wonderful like BBC’s iPlayer and somehow suggest that the BBC is somehow at fault for making lots of shoddy ISPs look like the idiots that they are, due to not being able to cope with the traffic the fantastic iPlayer creates.

Oh, right—that’s already happened too.

When I was a kid, digital calculators were roughly the size of a brick, and had satisfyingly chunky displays. They also, in those pre-internet days, provided a means of minor technical mischief. Type in 5318008, flip your calculator upside down, and it appeared to say ‘boobies’. If you were five, this was the most hilarious and original gag in the history of the world.

In this modern and rather less innocent age, the media would have you believe that personal technology devices in the hands of children merely teach them how to joyride while murdering innocent puppies and simultaneously fashioning bombs out of string, jelly babies and bits of twig. It’s presumably for this reason that Apple considers it a good idea to warn you (Every. Single. Time.) when you download an eReader from the App Store that it—shock!—potentially enables you to view content that some people might deem objectionable.

Enter, stage right, James Thomson, creator of iPhone/iPod touch calculator PCalc. In a minor slice of design genius, he combined the two issues mentioned above and PCalc now slaps a huge ‘Censored!’ sign across ‘naughty’ words when your device is flipped, thereby ensuring fragile little minds aren’t warped beyond all recognition.

This is a smart, funny, satirical swipe at the recent trend towards over-zealous censorship. Unless you’re, say, Sajid Farooq of NBC, who, inexplicably takes Thomson’s joke seriously (and, sadly, he’s not alone) and states PCalc’s change would “make even George Orwell shudder in his grave”. I’m thinking Orwell would be more likely to laugh his CENSORED off.

Ever since videogames crawled, bleary-eyed, from a pond full of pixellated scum soup, mainstream media has had it in for them. Perhaps it’s the threat—when people become hooked on doing something interactive, they seldom return to passive entertainment so regularly. So while many dedicated gamers might consider the sedate life-in-a-PC ‘game’ The Sims to be roughly equivalent to terminal boredom, it’s still a major step up, in terms of keeping your brain alive, from watching the dreary inhabitants of Albert Square go about their mundane and depressing existence. Play something more exciting and evening soaps will be about as appealing as being sanded down.

Non-gamers assume videogaming is just an outlet for teenage boys, whereas the mainstream media considers it a genuinely corrupting influence, with millions of games ‘out there’ that somehow ‘train’ youngsters to mutilate, maim, kill, shoot, KILL, SHOOT, KIL KILL KILLLLLL!!11!!11! But, as Charlie Brooker’s rather wonderful one-off special Gameswipe ably showed last night, that’s just bollocks.

Videogames are like any other genre: mostly full of crud, but with utter gems sprinkled about, and with a suitably diverse array of products to choose from. The resurgence of classic gaming (usually described as ‘retro’ or ‘casual’ gaming) has also reintroduced a range of relatively safe games for wee kiddies that are also simple enough for them to enjoy, leaving the more brutal and violent titles for older gamers. And, as Brooker noted more than once in his show, gaming is all about suitability, just like movies. You wouldn’t let your five-year-old watch Saw, so don’t let them play Kill Death Maim IV; but kids can happily watch cartoons, so let them play Super Mario. (And, like Pixar movies, quality fare suitable for kids can also be enjoyed by adults.)

On Twitter, Brooker says another Gameswipe one-off might happen at some point, and I sincerely hope so. Videogaming has been vilified for too long on the TV, and it’s about time the genre had some intelligent programming dedicated to it. For now, go and watch Gameswipe on iPlayer and then tell the BBC you enjoyed it.