Adobe Releases AIR, Flex 3

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Adobe today announced the immediate availability (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200802/022508AdobeAIR.html) of Adobe AIR, a new platform for building rich internet applications (RIAs).

Adobe AIR enables developers to create RIAs on the desktop using the skills and Web technologies — such as HTML, Ajax, PDF, Adobe Flash and Adobe Flex — they already employ. Applications deployed on Adobe AIR have the advantages of browser-based RIAs, such as speed of development, ease of use, and access from virtually anywhere. Yet they also have the benefits of desktop applications, such as the ability to read/write local files, work with other applications on a user’s computer and maintain local data storage on the desktop.

Adobe points out that AIR makes use of various open source technologies including WebKit, the Apple-sponsored rendering engine behind Safari.

Also released is Adobe Flex 3 software which provides a framework for developing applications based on Adobe's Flex and AIR frameworks.

Flex is a free, open source framework for building highly interactive, expressive RIAs. Adobe Flex Builder™ 3, an Eclipse™ based development tool, accelerates Flex application development and includes new capabilities for deploying RIAs on Adobe AIR. Adobe Flex Builder 3 integrates with Adobe Creative Suite® 3 software making it easy for designers and developers to work together more efficiently. Powerful new testing tools, including memory and performance profilers and integrated support for automated functional testing, speed up development and lead to higher performing RIAs.

The Adobe AIR (http://www.adobe.com/products/air/) and Flex (http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/) SDKs are available as free downloads from Adobe's website. Commercial versions of Adobe Flex Builder are also available.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/25/adobe-releases-air-flex-3/)

[eddx]

Should give us a better experience of flash based video such as youtube etc on our macs but when flash comes to the iPhone, then I get excited. Certainly will be checking this new software out though.

[DuFFy]

thats quite a convenient release the day before the SDK SHOULD come out, maybe flash in the next iphone update?!?!?!

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

I dont see the prospect of this, other than - god forbid - Flash animations and adds in applications.. -.-

[BeyondCloister]

I dont see the prospect of this, other than - god forbid - Flash animations and adds in applications.. -.-

I assume you are meaning you don't seem a purpose for AIR?

There are lots of cases where it is useful to be able to use functionality from a website type application while offline. eBay already have an application built using it that lets you set up all the information for selling an item offline and then it just uploads the data once an internet connection is available.

It could also easily be put to use in the data collection field. The application would run on the device the person has out in the field and then once they have an internet connection back in the office it all gets uploaded.

I was at an Adobe event where they demonstrated the technology last year and have several ideas of what it could be used for.

[anthonyjr]

So, where's the Shockwave Universal Binary? Eh?

How long has it been now?

[ert3]

does anyone else see this as a way for apple to work around an iPhone SDK. I mean if air allows you to read/write files to a given computer then you can write apps for mobile safari that can read write files to iPhone.

[AdeFowler]

Yet they also have the benefits of desktop applications, such as the ability to read/write local files...

Not sure I like the sound of that.

[razorianfly]

does anyone else see this as a way for apple to work around an iPhone SDK. I mean if air allows you to read/write files to a given computer then you can write apps for mobile safari that can read write files to iPhone.

I agree, I think this may have surfaced to aid Apple with the iPhone SDK. I hope not. I hope Apple provide a fully finished SDK of their own. Thats what i hope. But we all know thats not going to happen, if there is an easy, cheaper way ...

Cue .. Adobe AIR.

R-Fly

[BeyondCloister]

Yet they also have the benefits of desktop applications, such as the ability to read/write local files...

Not sure I like the sound of that.

Depends what you download. If it is some random application you find on the internet then it may be trouble. However it is an application a company develops for their staff then the ability to read/write local files is vital or the technology is crippled.

[dr_lha]

No way is the iPhone SDK going to be related to this in any way shape or form. Sorry folks, this is totally unrelated.

[justflie]

I agree, I think this may have surfaced to aid Apple with the iPhone SDK. I hope not. I hope Apple provide a fully finished SDK of their own. Thats what i hope. But we all know thats not going to happen, if there is an easy, cheaper way ...

Cue .. Adobe AIR.

R-Fly

agreed. It just seems like perfect timing for the iPhone sdk to be released. Fingers crossed!

[louden]

I see that Microsoft is about to release Silverlight 2.0 (a beta anyway), and I'd bet that even though Apple is loathe to give up a piece of what may become a key platform to develop upon (iPhone/touch) - I'd think that Adobe's offering is far enough along to leverage.

I do think that Apple will find some way to stop Microsoft from getting Silverlight on the iPhone in some way... If only because we need some political intrigue in here...

[BeyondCloister]

I agree, I think this may have surfaced to aid Apple with the iPhone SDK.


There is a world beyond Apple ;)

The beta of AIR first came out only a couple of months after the iPhone was announced so only the most paranoid conspiracy thinking person would come to the conclusion that this is some kind of plot to prevent the need for an iPhone SDK.

[vincebio]

i just downloaded Air and tried out the Ebay desktop app..

if it was actually usable it may be actually pretty good....kind of like an Adobe Garagesale app.

but its awfully slow and not very usable...

so why bother releasing such an awful unfinished product?

[Bakey]

So, where's the Shockwave Universal Binary? Eh?

How long has it been now?

This one clearly passed the majority of MacRumors well and truly by!!

Anyway; http://www.adobe.com/products/director/ and the UB Shockwave Player is very on it's way!!

This puppy is very much the last piece in my jigsaw as far as my Universal needs go!! :D

[ale500]

This sucks. The release cycle is too short!. They did not even fixed the bugs in Flex 2 !, and the flash player is even buggier :-( (Printing has load of issues, not shown widgets aren't initialized), etc, etc, etc. The parser accepts loads of invalid constructs without warning...
I hope they cooked it up a bit better than what they did with Flex 2, and by the way I hope Flex Builder 3 is less sucky than 2, 400 bucks for a pretty gui maker is a bit steep:mad:

[FakeWozniak]

Um, I heard of these before and they are either Widgets or Gadgets. The only new twist is that they look like applications. I even thought I saw some shareware available to set dashboard applications free. Anyone recall the name?

I like that Apple is Adobe-Free with regards to PDFs etc, so I hope nothing useful ever comes of this Hot-AIR project because I will have to go without it. I'd like to be Flash-Free.

I wonder if AIR takes about 30 seconds to load every Adobe plugin known to mankind, indicates an update is available every week, and uses 120MB of disk space. :confused:

[zimv20]

I hope they cooked it up a bit better than what they did with Flex 2, and by the way I hope Flex Builder 3 is less sucky than 2, 400 bucks for a pretty gui maker is a bit steep:mad:

flexbuilder 3 has a useable profiler, it crashes less for me, it has some convenience features for developers that flexbuilder 2 didn't.

i'm still working in flex 2 (the framework), but will start moving some of our apps to flex 3 (the framework) before too long. but i've been using flexbuilder 3 betas for some 6 months now and like it better than FB2.

...

for those unfamiliar with AIR, it's a pretty neat trick. you can take your RIAs developed for browser deployment and pretty much automagically run them on the desktop. there's no security sandbox anymore, as there is for a flash app run in the browser, but it's the same as downloading any app from the intarwebs.

[Small White Car]

Yet they also have the benefits of desktop applications, such as the ability to read/write local files...

Not sure I like the sound of that.

An example...

Using Apple Mail or MS Outlook or whatever is better than using web-mail in a browser.

They're making it so those web-based mail programs could be a lot more like desktop mail programs.

And you "don't like the sound of that?"

This is pretty cool.

[KingYaba]

Awesome. Now I can get some Air on my Air.

[mdriftmeyer]

Other than Flash, I'll use WebKit directly. PDF is an ISO standard and there are plenty of kits to leverage those capabilities.

AIR doesn't do a damn thing for me.

[ChrisA]

I make actually use this. I has just about to start a new browser based application and I was going to just use simple server side Perl scrips and html forms. Maybe this will work better?

[twoodcc]

seems nice. we'll see how it does

[Toe]

It's like Adobe is competing with themselves to see how many Adobe brands they can fit into one product description.

AIR builds RIAs, which may incorporate Flex and Flash, using Flex Builder 3, which is based on Eclipse, and which integrates with Creative Suite 3.

Did I get that right? :) They use the term "open source" a lot, but they are all about creating an Adobe-proprietary world. (Just like Microsoft... and yes Apple too.)

[ClimbingTheLog]

Adobe can do two things here: market AIR as a next-gen x-plat desktop SDK with Internet goodness, or try to convince people to dump standards websites for their proprietary kit, like they've done with Flash. One is good, one is evil. Just try to shop for a new car without Flash.... like if you have an iPhone.

[BRLawyer]

I dont see the prospect of this, other than - god forbid - Flash animations and adds in applications.. -.-

Not to mention that Flash is the SINGLE stupid thing that pushes CPU usage and slows Internet browsing to a crawl on a Mac.

The quality of Adobe's products has gone downhill since at least 10 years ago, and I hope this new technology is not just another display of that...:rolleyes:

[InLikeALion]

An example...

Using Apple Mail or MS Outlook or whatever is better than using web-mail in a browser.

They're making it so those web-based mail programs could be a lot more like desktop mail programs.

And you "don't like the sound of that?"

This is pretty cool.

He just meant that he is paranoid of web-based apps having the ability to read/write local files - it does seem like another area for hackers/malware writers to exploit.

[Toe]

The quality of Adobe's products has gone downhill since at least 10 years ago, and I hope this new technology is not just another display of that...:rolleyes:

I hope it is. They have been going so downhill since their peak (probably around Illustrator 5 and Photoshop 3). Maybe it's time they died and let better technologies mature. Heh... maybe Microsoft will buy them. That would be a fitting way for them to die an ugly death. :D

[Manderby]

Oh, wow, great, now I can look at different kind of contents in a whole new way: In a Window!!!!!! Running its own application!!! Oh, wow, can't breathe. Not in a Browser (window) or a widget (window)! With a whole new usability exp(lod)ierience. Have you seen the screen-capture tool for safari? Such a nice color! And it almost works!

I'm just waiting for the first PopupAds on Mac Finder.

Oh, there is an uninstaller. Perfect. Done.

Remember the days where Quicktime offered customization of UI?

Such a waste of programmer energy.

[Littleodie914]

How is this new? Is the SDK just now being publicly released?

Adobe's Kuler app and Pownce have both been running on the AIR platform for months now. :confused:

[zimv20]

so there seems to be a lot of confusion over what these releases are.

let's start with RIA (rich internet applications). the main competitors in this space are Adobe Flex, Microsoft Silverlight and OpenLaszlo. (and to an extent AJAX, but not quite).

so what's an RIA? it's a webapp that looks like and has some of the functionality of a desktop app. instead of getting traditional website page reloads, it's a fluid app. you get the benefit of webapp distribution and the benefit of a desktop look 'n' feel.

for Adobe, that means their Flex apps play in flashplayer. a new Flex release doesn't mean there's a new flashplayer, and it has no bearing on the iphone.

so what is Flex?

mostly, it's an application framework and a component library. you can get an SDK for it, which is free, or you can pay and get FlexBuilder, which is an IDE for developing flex apps. what was released today was a new SDK, Flex 3, and a new IDE, FlexBuilder3.

you code Flex in two languages: mxml (a component tag language) and ActionScript (an OO language, looks a bit like Java and a bit like Javascript). you compile your app into a SWF, which runs in the flashplayer.

note that there's a whole 'nother suite of tools for making flash apps, which are traditionally used by designers. Flex is more geared towards developers.

...

AIR is a newer adobe technology that allows you to take existing flex apps and recompile them to run on the desktop: no browser needed. now, it's just like a typical desktop app, and can access the filesystem and devices. it's no more nor less secure than downloading any other desktop app from the internet.

so what's cool about that? you can write an app once and choose whether to deploy it on the desktop (windows, mac, and i think linux now) or have it run in a browser.

it's cool stuff, actually, and those who are bad-mouthing it without understanding what it is may want to take a step back and actually have a look at it.

disclaimer: i'm a flex app developer. and fwiw, i don't make websites, i make realworld applications with multi-million dollar budgets that just happen to be deployed in a browser.

[starflyer]

Something is in the RIA.:D

[Westside guy]

He just meant that he is paranoid of web-based apps having the ability to read/write local files - it does seem like another area for hackers/malware writers to exploit.

Yeah this was what I immediately thought of as well. It sounds like one giant security hole just waiting to be exploited...

Has anyone learned from the debacle that is ActiveX?

[davepelz]

Um, I heard of these before and they are either Widgets or Gadgets. The only new twist is that they look like applications. I even thought I saw some shareware available to set dashboard applications free. Anyone recall the name?

I like that Apple is Adobe-Free with regards to PDFs etc, so I hope nothing useful ever comes of this Hot-AIR project because I will have to go without it. I'd like to be Flash-Free.

I wonder if AIR takes about 30 seconds to load every Adobe plugin known to mankind, indicates an update is available every week, and uses 120MB of disk space. :confused:


I think a lot of people in this forum do not understand what adobe air is. It's not Konfabulator! This isn't a widget runtime.

The purpose is to allow web programmers to build desktop APPLICATIONS, not just simple widgets. Isn't it nice being able to have access to your email offline with Apple Mail? And isn't it great being able to buy songs online through the iTunes desktop application and not at a separate website? So why don't you like the idea of more programs like this?

AIR applications can include flash but they can ALSO be built in all HTML and include pdf and have access to sql lite databases, and drag and drop from os applications.

And most importantly you write one application that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux!





Other than Flash, I'll use WebKit directly. PDF is an ISO standard and there are plenty of kits to leverage those capabilities
AIR doesn't do a damn thing for me.


So you have a kit that lets you develop one app that runs on every platform and includes a unified installer, sql lite database access, access to native os functions?

I think you guys should take a closer look at what AIR really is. It lets developers with web programming knowledge who are already building web applications ( in Flash or AJAX ) , and take those applications to the desktop and give them a free and easy way to deploy them on every major platform.


One final example to illustrate what is possible with AIR is Buzzword. Buzzword is an online word processor built with flex. Soon Buzzword will release an AIR application.

Which means:
- you can get a free word processor
- which runs on every major platform
- you can sync all your documents online
- have access to them and the word processor at buzzword.com
-and have access to all your documents offline using the desktop AIR application.



IMHO I find that pretty compelling.

[Westside guy]

And most importantly you write one application that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux!

Wow, why didn't anyone think of that before now?

Oh, wait. They did. It's called Java. It's about 10 years old.

[lazyrighteye]

No way is the iPhone SDK going to be related to this in any way shape or form. Sorry folks, this is totally unrelated.

100% agree.
The alternative is just, plain, moronic*.
Neat tech, but no correlation to an iPhone SDK.


* which is to say, I just can't see any reason why Apple would work so hard to create a new platform, only to turn around and tie their SDK to another software company. I graduated from art school. That said, seems like bad business idea of the year caliber thinking, to me.

[Sandfleaz]

Man, i just wish I understood all of that :D
.

[lazyrighteye]

It's like Adobe is competing with themselves to see how many Adobe brands they can fit into one product description.

AIR builds RIAs, which may incorporate Flex and Flash, using Flex Builder 3, which is based on Eclipse, and which integrates with Creative Suite 3.

Did I get that right? :) They use the term "open source" a lot, but they are all about creating an Adobe-proprietary world. (Just like Microsoft... and yes Apple too.)

+1!

Open source has become THE buzz word in the world of software.
But having 'the community' create stuff, in a proprietary format, seems less than open to me. But maybe I'm missing something.

[davepelz]

Wow, why didn't anyone think of that before now?

Oh, wait. They did. It's called Java. It's about 10 years old.

I wasn't claiming they were the first to do it, just that it does and it lets you using existing web technologies.

[stadidas]

As cool as all of this is (and I do understand it, I'm a professional software developer), I can't help thinking that a lot of the benefits are only applicable to programmers and not to end users. Ok, writing one app for web and all desktop platforms is compelling. However, to achieve the best user experience on any desktop platform, the best way is always native (Cocoa for Mac, .Net for Windows). Java has already proven this. There are numerous problems with look and feel, which is especially important to Mac users in particular. And this isn't needless fanboy-ism. Apple put a lot of effort into user experience because it is incredibly important. Having a GUI universal across the web and all desktop platforms will result in a lot of bad interfaces. You can get away with crap on the web, but desktop standards are a lot higher.
Also, by not having access to the frameworks native to the platform, you shut yourself out from an incredible amount of free functionality and ways of creating apps that are immediately familiar with end users.
I think products like this are a fantastic step forward. However, 'write once - deploy anywhere' apps are never best in class. AIR does nothing to change that.

[davepelz]

+1!

Open source has become THE buzz word in the world of software.
But having 'the community' create stuff, in a proprietary format, seems less than open to me. But maybe I'm missing something.



Did I get that right? They use the term "open source" a lot, but they are all about creating an Adobe-proprietary world. (Just like Microsoft... and yes Apple too.)



What about this exactly is propietary?
Air runtime = free
Flash player = free & parts of it open sourced through mozilla
Flex SDK (for creating flash applications) = free & open source
Flash remoting (blaze ds) = free & open source
Creating html/ajax = free
Sql lite = free
pdf = open standard

[crees!]

It's like Adobe is competing with themselves to see how many Adobe brands they can fit into one product description.

AIR builds RIAs, which may incorporate Flex and Flash, using Flex Builder 3, which is based on Eclipse, and which integrates with Creative Suite 3.

Did I get that right? :) They use the term "open source" a lot, but they are all about creating an Adobe-proprietary world. (Just like Microsoft... and yes Apple too.)

No. AIR basically allows any level of web developer the ability to create web-enabled desktop apps. So if you just know Javascript/AJAX/HTML, you can create a desktop app. If you are a programming FLEX genius, you can do the same too. This is very smart on Adobe's part.

For those trying to link this to Apple and the iPhone. Fat chance. They are no where related until the AIR plugin becomes iPhone-friendly.

[crees!]

As cool as all of this is (and I do understand it, I'm a professional software developer), I can't help thinking that a lot of the benefits are only applicable to programmers and not to end users. Ok, writing one app for web and all desktop platforms is compelling. However, to achieve the best user experience on any desktop platform, the best way is always native (Cocoa for Mac, .Net for Windows). Java has already proven this. There are numerous problems with look and feel, which is especially important to Mac users in particular. And this isn't needless fanboy-ism. Apple put a lot of effort into user experience because it is incredibly important. Having a GUI universal across the web and all desktop platforms will result in a lot of bad interfaces. You can get away with crap on the web, but desktop standards are a lot higher.
Also, by not having access to the frameworks native to the platform, you shut yourself out from an incredible amount of free functionality and ways of creating apps that are immediately familiar with end users.
I think products like this are a fantastic step forward. However, 'write once - deploy anywhere' apps are never best in class. AIR does nothing to change that.

As for look and feel you're able to select the native systems look or you can create your own l&f. It's up to the developer.

[Bob Knob]

What about this exactly is propietary?
Air runtime = free
Flash player = free & parts of it open sourced through mozilla
Flex SDK (for creating flash applications) = free & open source
Flash remoting (blaze ds) = free & open source
Creating html/ajax = free
Sql lite = free
pdf = open standard

Not bashing you because I actually think this is an interesting development...
BUT, "proprietary" and "free" have nothing in common, you dilute your argument by using "free".

[Analog Kid]

RIA-- another silly, meaningless acronym. Internet applications went nowhere, so then they went to "rich" internet applications to differentiate from the market for "poor" internet applications. Now a silly acronym in the hopes of building a subculture of people who know what it stands for and throw it around like it has weight...

To whoever said this "isn't widgets"-- it is. Just bigger widgets.

I, for one, wish companies would spend less time building new frameworks for web development and focus on fixing the web as it is. For a technology that should be cross-platform by nature it's a freaking mess.

Maybe it's just a cranky Monday, but this just strikes me as another rapid development framework for web developers who want to be desktop developers and that is going to churn out half a dozen toy applications. Next week Facebook will counter with a framework for "rich social applications" and Google will announce plans for another "perpetual beta project".

[stadidas]

As for look and feel you're able to select the native systems look or you can create your own l&f. It's up to the developer.

They did that in Java too and it doesn't work very well. I'm not saying AIR won't be better in that department, but you still won't have access to native interface widgets directly.

My main problem with the whole idea is that it means you have less code to write, which is great, but the end user gets shafted with a product that would have been better if it had been done normal way. Yes it's more work, yes it's harder. That's what we're paid to do. We're paid to do the right thing.
A much better happy medium is to have an application akin to iTunes. It uses the web where appropriate, and does it within a proper application container. You get the benefits of the web via the use of a web service, plus the benefits of the desktop, without all the needless wheel re-inventing.
When developers start making decisions based on making their lives easier, rather than what's best for the customer, then they're failing the customer.

[davepelz]

Not bashing you because I actually think this is an interesting development...
BUT, "proprietary" and "free" have nothing in common, you dilute your argument by using "free".

yea thats a good point. i guess what i meant was that while the runtime may be proprietary, you can build the applications using all open source. And given Adobe's recent trend with open sourcing flex, flash remoting and open sourcing more of the flash player, I guess i wouldn't be surprised if AIR went in this direction also. Even if they didn't, I'm not sure I would just label this as an evil ploy by Adobe to trap all of us in their software, I see it more as a cool innovation.

[Soonerpet]

But will it enable Flash on my iPhone? Will it make it "snappier"? :)

I don't know why everyone is so eager to have flash on the iphone. The only thing that makes the iphone not miserable to use on edge is the lack of flash ads you'd normally get. To me not having flash is a god send cause I don't have to deal with ads or flash animation banners on my small screen taking up space. I think that is the real reason apple chose not to put flash support on it. The thing flash is most used for on the web is videos and ads, apple gave up the youtube app to take care of the videos and let us escape most of the bad flashy ads. So before crying because you want flash, just think how much slower your experience will be when your iphone will start loading all those flash ads and banners with every page.

[zimv20]

this just strikes me as another rapid development framework for web developers who want to be desktop developers and that is going to churn out half a dozen toy applications.

though i'm sure there'll be tons of useless toys, i am working on enterprise applications in flex that i assure you are not toys.

i started developing professionally in 1989, and i can't image this one particular enterprise app done in anything except flex. not even java.

imho, people are being a bit quick to judge w/o knowing, really, anything about flex.

[ryanguill]

Wow, why didn't anyone think of that before now?

Oh, wait. They did. It's called Java. It's about 10 years old.

right, except that this time it actually works and doesn't look like crap.

[davepelz]

They did that in Java too and it doesn't work very well. I'm not saying AIR won't be better in that department, but you still won't have access to native interface widgets directly.

My main problem with the whole idea is that it means you have less code to write, which is great, but the end user gets shafted with a product that would have been better if it had been done normal way. Yes it's more work, yes it's harder. That's what we're paid to do. We're paid to do the right thing.
A much better happy medium is to have an application akin to iTunes. It uses the web where appropriate, and does it within a proper application container. You get the benefits of the web via the use of a web service, plus the benefits of the desktop, without all the needless wheel re-inventing.
When developers start making decisions based on making their lives easier, rather than what's best for the customer, then they're failing the customer.

I would agree with the idea of making decisions that benefit the customer. But what if the cost/time was the difference between the application being built with AIR, or not at all? Then wouldn't you be failing the customer by not delivering the AIR application, even if its not perfectly native? I can't count the number of times i've heard of an interesting application only to discover it was windows only, or the mac version was "soon to follow" (aka months later if ever). I felt like the developers failed me then. And I can only imagine how rare it is that a Linux customer doesn't feel like they get shafted. AIR isn't going to work as a solution for every app, but I feel like I am going to get shafted less because of it, not more.

Also, what if you spent the time and money normally required to just get the app running and maintained for each independent OS and instead put that back into the product by adding requested features or paying for better support? Then wouldn't both the customer and developer win?

[ryanguill]

RIA-- another silly, meaningless acronym. Internet applications went nowhere, so then they went to "rich" internet applications to differentiate from the market for "poor" internet applications. Now a silly acronym in the hopes of building a subculture of people who know what it stands for and throw it around like it has weight...

don't hate the acronym, hate the game.


To whoever said this "isn't widgets"-- it is. Just bigger widgets.


yep, just like safari is a widget, or iPhoto or any of the other applications on your desktop.


I, for one, wish companies would spend less time building new frameworks for web development and focus on fixing the web as it is. For a technology that should be cross-platform by nature it's a freaking mess.

The only way a single company could fix the problem (attempt* to fix the problem) would be to make something proprietary. You can't control microsoft, opera, webkit or mozilla any more than anyone else. What exactly do you expect a company to do to fix it? And if all the companies could work together, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

For what its worth, Flex and the flashplayer is one of your best options in that regard. FP9 is installed on 90%+ (may be 95 now, im not sure) of the computers in the WORLD including windows, mac and linux. Consistent programming, consistent results. Its the closest thing you have to a standard.


Maybe it's just a cranky Monday, but this just strikes me as another rapid development framework for web developers who want to be desktop developers and that is going to churn out half a dozen toy applications. Next week Facebook will counter with a framework for "rich social applications" and Google will announce plans for another "perpetual beta project".

sure, you are going to see a lot of toy applications, but I don't think nasdaq and ebay are thinking "toy" when they built their apps in it. They may not be done yet, but it did just release today...

[FakeWozniak]

I think a lot of people in this forum do not understand what adobe air is. It's not Konfabulator! This isn't a widget runtime.

The purpose is to allow web programmers to build desktop APPLICATIONS, not just simple widgets. Isn't it nice being able to have access to your email offline with Apple Mail? And isn't it great being able to buy songs online through the iTunes desktop application and not at a separate website? So why don't you like the idea of more programs like this?


They are pushing an environment that a) promotes if not requires their other products, b) they exclusively control, c) isn't championed by an OS vendor (MSFT or AAPL), and d) already has solutions like Java.

When you factor in public opinion of Adobe, I don't think it will go far. Some software vendor will likely try it, but without a killer reason like performance, ease, cost, or support for other vendors tools; software developers will continue with java for smaller projects or 2 parallel development environments for larger projects as they always have. What is Adobe trying that hasn't been attempted before?

AIR, if successful, would only make every supported operating systems as good as the least common denominator. They want us to run windows again! ;)

[zimv20]

When you factor in public opinion of Adobe, I don't think it will go far.

are you talking about AIR or Flex? flex has been around for a couple years; it's AIR that had its first release today.

and regarding how far flex will go, you can get a sample of what kinds of apps have been built with it here:

http://flex.org/showcase/

this is by no means an exhaustive list. as mentioned, both ebay and nasdaq are heavy flex users.

plus, flash player deployment is HUGE. when a new version is released, it's only a few months before penetration is in the 90% range. if you're developing an app and want ease and width of deployment: what else is there? certainly not browser plug-ins for java, that's more like 60% (http://www.realchat.com/blog/java-vs-flash/).

[liberty4all]

HUH? You did not hear? AIR *IS* the iPhone SDK...

;-)



There is a world beyond Apple ;)

The beta of AIR first came out only a couple of months after the iPhone was announced so only the most paranoid conspiracy thinking person would come to the conclusion that this is some kind of plot to prevent the need for an iPhone SDK.

[liberty4all]

Yea, but I'm waiting for Adobe Nitrous -- to make AIR run faster!

;-)

Awesome. Now I can get some Air on my Air.

[hobbbz]

I really believe all the traditional developers who are complaining about AIR are just being defensive about their "god given ability" to write desktop apps being encroached upon by web developers / flash developers.

One thing I love about AIR is it allows me to create my own utilities for specific things I need. IE: I whipped up a tool to take automated thumbnails of FLVs saving myself hours of work each week. ( I was helping update a site with lots of weekly videos )

For another example, I use Meebo as my daily IM client. Those who use it know it is web only. I took about 20 lines of code, and made a simple app that loads meebo.com so I don't have to worry about Firefox crashing and losing my conversations.

[zimv20]

adobe put out this press release (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200802/022508AIRCustomers.html) that details some of the "toys" companies like NASDAQ, the New York Times, and DeutscheBank are offering with AIR.

[peregin55]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like the idea of blurring the line between desktop and internet applications.

If it means having more feature-filled websites, that's fine. But I don't want my desktop applications to start requiring an internet connection. And with Adobe planning on releasing a web-based Photoshop in the next 5 years, I'm worried this is just a fancy way of screwing over the customer.

Someone has to pay for the infrastructure required to support these web-enabled features, and that money will come from the customer. Either through ads or by renting the software through a monthly fee. I can't help but think that all of these companies are looking over at Blizzard's World of Warcraft and licking their chops: constant revenue stream!

[Analog Kid]

though i'm sure there'll be tons of useless toys, i am working on enterprise applications in flex that i assure you are not toys.

i started developing professionally in 1989, and i can't image this one particular enterprise app done in anything except flex. not even java.

imho, people are being a bit quick to judge w/o knowing, really, anything about flex.
adobe put out this press release (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200802/022508AIRCustomers.html) that details some of the "toys" companies like NASDAQ, the New York Times, and DeutscheBank are offering with AIR.
I'm still not seeing it... Can you help me understand the magic? To say it couldn't be done in Java makes it sound like there's something truly unique.
yep, just like safari is a widget, or iPhoto or any of the other applications on your desktop.
No, just like Widgets are widgets-- encapsulated web apps that have limited access to local system resources.
The only way a single company could fix the problem (attempt* to fix the problem) would be to make something proprietary. You can't control microsoft, opera, webkit or mozilla any more than anyone else. What exactly do you expect a company to do to fix it? And if all the companies could work together, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....

(The answer isn't to surrender to vendor lock-in.)
sure, you are going to see a lot of toy applications, but I don't think nasdaq and ebay are thinking "toy" when they built their apps in it. They may not be done yet, but it did just release today...I really believe all the traditional developers who are complaining about AIR are just being defensive about their "god given ability" to write desktop apps being encroached upon by web developers / flash developers.

One thing I love about AIR is it allows me to create my own utilities for specific things I need. IE: I whipped up a tool to take automated thumbnails of FLVs saving myself hours of work each week.
...
I took about 20 lines of code, and made a simple app that loads meebo.com so I don't have to worry about Firefox crashing and losing my conversations.
When WinCE came out, it was wrapped in the hype that if you could write Windows code, you could now do embedded systems development-- which was followed by a lot of bad embedded apps because someone in management took the bait. It has nothing to do with "god given rights", it's about using the right tools for the job.

Nasdaq and Ebay almost certainly don't think they're making toys-- they think they're leveraging their institutional core competence in rich internet application (RIA) development into emerging, enterprise-facing markets. If the showcase is anything to judge by, I suspect what they're going to get will feel like a toy-- even if it's doing grownup work in the background. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong examples...

I don't mean that as a slight on the developers (web development is maddeningly complicated), but as a comment on the look and feel and strength of these kinds of applications. The browser is an alternate universe where the rules of the desktop are suspended. Once you get out of the browser though, you expect applications to behave like all the others. That's also why widgets got relegated to the dashboard-- another alternate universe.

[C-Dubs]

It's like Adobe is competing with themselves to see how many Adobe brands they can fit into one product description.

AIR builds RIAs, which may incorporate Flex and Flash, using Flex Builder 3, which is based on Eclipse, and which integrates with Creative Suite 3.

Did I get that right? :) They use the term "open source" a lot, but they are all about creating an Adobe-proprietary world. (Just like Microsoft... and yes Apple too.)

haha yeah so true

maybe AIR will be the default reader for Flash on the iPhone? Maybe it uses a lot less power than a regular Flash reader, hence it will help prolonge iPhone battery life? I might have read it wrong, but it did say it integrates FLASH, right?

an iPhone SDK might still come out tomorrow, btw. Or at least have a definitive date set.

I hope Adobe's plan works out though, because if MS has their way, they will try to get all internet sites onto silverlight, then pull the Apple plug. Same thing for Apple- if they designed a RIA maker they'd make it windows-compatible until they had enough internet sites using it where they would just pull the plug. At least Adobe has a vested interest in both platforms because it's simply a software maker- not a hardware company. They want to sell as many copies as possible.

[zimv20]

I'm still not seeing it... Can you help me understand the magic? To say it couldn't be done in Java makes it sound like there's something truly unique.

no magic, i should start off by saying that.

second, my "can't imagine doing that in java" comment was reserved for a project i'm working on currently. i'm under NDA, so i'm limited in what i can say, but it's friggin' huge (and i've worked on many enterprise apps before) and relies heavily on flex's event-based architecture. i reckon there's a team somewhere which could build this app in java, but i seriously doubt it'd have the same time-to-market and dynamic behavior. i'm sorry i can't go into any more detail about it.

....

i don't want to, nor think it's terribly useful, to get into a flex vs. java argument. first, they're quite different beasts. flex exists only on the client side, for starters. but i'm happy to get into some of the benefits i see. (and fwiw, i was a server-side C++ then java developer for many years; this is my first foray into user-experience).

flex comes with a number of pre-built components that are pretty well thought-out. by using just the including components, laying them out and giving them properties in the mxml language, you can accomplish quite a bit. the first app i worked on was a database-scrape on one hand, but also did a lot in terms of client-side logic and flexible views. on this project, we did very little in terms of customizing flex.

subsequent apps i've worked on extended flex pretty heavily, including custom component development. the flex app framework is deep, complex and powerful. it's heavily event-driven and takes a while to truly grok (and i've really just scratched the surface, i think). most of this kind of coding takes place in ActionScript, which is a fairly decent 3G OO language (though not as advanced as either C++ or java). flex also provides easy-to-use data binding, which means you can update your model with new data and the framework will push out those changes to everyone subscribed. i reckon ebay's using that to update the clients of an auction whenever someone makes a new bid, for example.

so the "magic" here is that one can develop some pretty involved apps using mostly mxml (easy) and a little ActionScript (more involved), or really scale up to enterprise using a little mxml and a lot of AS and messaging.

then the app can be delivered via the web or intranets and run in the flash player. as discussed above, flash player has huge penetration, so most target users can run it straightaway.

...

regarding AIR, i've not used it yet, but i think it's basically Adobe making flash players that run on the desktop. so the apps that had been running in a flash player in the browser, with a quick recompile, can now be run in a desktop flashplayer. i *think* that's the way it works, but i could be wrong.

...

for most apps out there, yeah, you could probably do something similar in java. and java has done great in the enterprise, and i reckon will continue to do so for years to come, but imho i haven't seen it have the same success on the desktop. i have a sneaking suspicion that flex will do well in that role, and we'll see a lot of flex front ends talking with java backends (all that's done in XML).

...

one final showcase item: i work with the guys who did some custom components for this site. it looks like it was done in flash, but the whole thing was written in flex:

http://www.firebrand.com/

try doing *that* in java or ajax :-)

[JackAxe]

Have you seen what they're doing with C/C++, they can cross compile it directly to AS3. They demoed Quake II running in a SWF.

If not, check it out; (IGNORE THE ANNOYING WHOOOOOER!)
http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2007/10/03/adobe-max-chicago-sneak-peeks/

Since you work with those guys, tell them to clean up their HTML, the scroll-bar almost never turns off. :o And for the love of TODD, tell them to stop using "AC_OETags.js." :eek: It's a major POS!! It not only cause performance issues, as in noticeable slowdown, I've had it introduce bugs into my SWFs. SWFOBject (http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/) is a way better solution. It works great on all browsers and has never done me wrong. :)

@peregin55
Adobe will only be offering an entry level photo editor online. It's called Photoshop Express. Photoshop will still be a desktop only app. I would refuse to upgrade if Adobe ever went the online-pay-route. But on that note, Photoshop Express(Built in Flex) is a great example of what can be done with AIR. This is something that can not be done in AJAX, nor Silverlight. Compared to Flash, AJAX is nothing more than a hack and Silverlight is a joke/Zune.

<]=)

[kaiwai]

Yet they also have the benefits of desktop applications, such as the ability to read/write local files...

Not sure I like the sound of that.

Why, whats wrong with that? you download, you get asked whether you want to open it up, and when you want to save/open/right you will get asked, just you get asked today. I see nothing wrong with that.

If Flex/Air means that we get more applications on the Mac because people opt for a platform neutral framework to base their applications on, I'm all for it.

[Analog Kid]

...
i don't want to, nor think it's terribly useful, to get into a flex vs. java argument. first, they're quite different beasts. flex exists only on the client side, for starters. but i'm happy to get into some of the benefits i see. (and fwiw, i was a server-side C++ then java developer for many years; this is my first foray into user-experience).

flex comes with a number of pre-built components that are pretty well thought-out. by using just the including components, laying them out and giving them properties in the mxml language, you can accomplish quite a bit. the first app i worked on was a database-scrape on one hand, but also did a lot in terms of client-side logic and flexible views. on this project, we did very little in terms of customizing flex.

subsequent apps i've worked on extended flex pretty heavily, including custom component development. the flex app framework is deep, complex and powerful. it's heavily event-driven and takes a while to truly grok (and i've really just scratched the surface, i think). most of this kind of coding takes place in ActionScript, which is a fairly decent 3G OO language (though not as advanced as either C++ or java). flex also provides easy-to-use data binding, which means you can update your model with new data and the framework will push out those changes to everyone subscribed. i reckon ebay's using that to update the clients of an auction whenever someone makes a new bid, for example.

so the "magic" here is that one can develop some pretty involved apps using mostly mxml (easy) and a little ActionScript (more involved), or really scale up to enterprise using a little mxml and a lot of AS and messaging.

then the app can be delivered via the web or intranets and run in the flash player. as discussed above, flash player has huge penetration, so most target users can run it straightaway.
Hey, thanks for the detailed response-- that's the kind of stuff I was looking for. Sounds like a UI construction kit with an almost Rails-like backend? I'm picturing more of a list of "onEvent" handlers than event based URL gets, but the same kind of segmentation...

The data "pushing" can't be over http, does the app automatically open a second "listen" channel back to the host?
regarding AIR, i've not used it yet, but i think it's basically Adobe making flash players that run on the desktop. so the apps that had been running in a flash player in the browser, with a quick recompile, can now be run in a desktop flashplayer. i *think* that's the way it works, but i could be wrong.
I almost get the feeling there's a web _server_ wrapped in there too... Whatever app you open becomes DocumentRoot. Just a hunch...
for most apps out there, yeah, you could probably do something similar in java. and java has done great in the enterprise, and i reckon will continue to do so for years to come, but imho i haven't seen it have the same success on the desktop. i have a sneaking suspicion that flex will do well in that role, and we'll see a lot of flex front ends talking with java backends (all that's done in XML).
I presume you're publishing some corporate service throughout the company with your app, or providing a front end to a corporate database, and I can see why there might be thin client approach to a problem like that, but I still don't want to see userland stuff go this way.

I think the fact that I'm not alone is why Java failed on the desktop...
one final showcase item: i work with the guys who did some custom components for this site. it looks like it was done in flash, but the whole thing was written in flex:

http://www.firebrand.com/

try doing *that* in java or ajax :-)
Core Animation could do it well enough... ;)

I guess it's going to be a long slog before web-apps can match desktop apps, and I guess the half-way solutions are better than static pages in some cases, but it all brings back too many memories of the "obsolete the operating system" riots in the late '90s. I just don't see it happening. And I'm not convinced that the answer is to give web-apps desktop like qualities rather than give desktop apps more connectivity. Someone else mentioned iTunes integration, and I agree that's a good model.

I have to admit it's slick for a website, and I'm comfortable with it as a website-- it just wouldn't play as a Mac application, in my mind. Is there an AIR version of it?

[iPost]

The Adobe AIR release is aimed at developers, not consumers. It's just providing developers with another technology they can use to create desktop applications.

You can't do anything with AIR that you cannot already do with native APIs. So, users will not see anything earth shattering here. In fact, the opposite is true. AIR currently puts some major handcuffs on the developer by limiting what they can do (all in the name of cross-platform compatibility). For example, AIR cannot play those AAC files you ripped with iTunes (it does MP3 only). And forget about watching QuickTime video in an AIR app. It only supports what Flash does, namely FLV and H.264 video. Want to watch a DVD in an AIR app? You'll be out of luck. AIR provides no access to DVD video streams. Want to burn a CD in an AIR app? Out of luck again. Want to load photos from your digital camera? Transfer tunes to your iPod? Have an app communicate with or control any of your iLife apps? No, no, and no!

And who really wants an app created with Flash technology anyway? Have you noticed the font rendering in Flash? Despite what Adobe keeps claiming, to my eyes it's nowhere near as nice as what you get with an application that is written with native APIs.

Really, the only people who should be excited about this are the web developers who know JavaScript and ActionScript, but never bothered to learn C++ or Objective C. With AIR, those developers can now write desktop applications. Big yawn from me. Given a choice, I'll always pick desktop applications written in native APIs by people who really know how to make my hardware sing. Sorry Adobe.

Case in point: I just downloaded the Finetune Internet radio AIR app. When it runs, it requires more memory than iTunes and uses up 5 times the amout of CPU resources than iTunes!

[dicklacara]

one final showcase item: i work with the guys who did some custom components for this site. it looks like it was done in flash, but the whole thing was written in flex:

http://www.firebrand.com/

try doing *that* in java or ajax :-)

Mmmm... the firebrand site illustrates both the good and bad of website design:

On my alBook 1GHz G4 with nothing else running, except Activity Monitor, I used Safari to pull up the page (no other Safari windows or tabs open):

-- The CPU spiked at 100%
-- It took 30 seconds of "loading..." before it was ready to connect
-- after 2 minutes of "connecting to firebrand", I closed the window

On my iMac24 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo, with nothing else running, except Activity Monitor, I used Safari to pull up the page (no other Safari windows or tabs open):

-- The CPUs spiked at 30% for a few seconds
-- It took 4 seconds of "loading..." before it was ready to connect
-- It took 4 seconds of "connecting to firebrand" and I was into the site

Both connections were 1000+ kbps cable modem

The first experience was very bad, the second was good!

I used to develop websites, primarily in ColdFusion (which automatically compiles to Java ByteCode), Perl, Javascript, AJAX and some PHP.

I always had a stated goal that: the first time a user visited the site, the first page should be fully displayed in 17 seconds (or less) over dial-up. Failing this, most users would get bored and just move on....

... No matter how compelling the site was, the potential user would never see it-- a great disservice to him and my client!

After Adobe (MacroMedia) introduced Flex, I attended an online seminar. I remember one presenter was saying (paraphrased): Flash has given us Rich Internet Applications (RIA); Flex was going to extend the "Reach" of these RIAs. She said the key was "Rich and Reach".

After playing around with Flex/Flash for several weeks, I emailed her saying ... no, based on performance, it should be "Rich Reach and Retch!"

The firebrand site might have been better developed, had it given the visitor a simple, fast, explanation of what the site was about, rather than spending minutes (for some computers) "overloading" content, that the visitor will never see.

Bringing this mixed experience to the desktop, via AIR, will not be a good thing, IMO!

Dick

[dicklacara]

I almost get the feeling there's a web _server_ wrapped in there too... Whatever app you open becomes DocumentRoot. Just a hunch...


You are prolly right in your hunch... In ColdFusion/Flex/Flash distros, you have the option of deploying to a platform-specific web server (Apache, Microsoft) or using Adobe's standalone JRun Java webserver. The Jrun stand-alone is usually used for developing web apps locally (before deploying them on a "Real" production web server.

It is relatively simple to "package" an application written in ColdFusion/Flex/Flash as a standalone desktop app (including web server, database, etc). In fact, if you don't need to write files, your "packaged" app can even run from a DVD.

[sachxn]

Will this effect online advertising in any way.

Sachin (http://editorial.co.in)

[ariel]

Seems as most of you have no experience with these tools.

As a software developer for a major mfg company in the US, my experience is exactly the opposite of what some of you are talking about. The users of our Flex based apps are absolutely thrilled with them. They run fast and do much more than they can do in a traditional HTML app.

They are easier to write than AJAX as well.

AJAX is used to build RIAs. RIAs are the future whether they are internet or desktop based.

[zimv20]

Mmmm... the firebrand site illustrates both the good and bad of website design:

yeah, it's got its problem. my company worked on some of the component design , but were not responsible for anything else.

[zimv20]

Sounds like a UI construction kit with an almost Rails-like backend?
backend is kind of a strange term here, since it's all client-side.


The data "pushing" can't be over http, does the app automatically open a second "listen" channel back to the host?
see AMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Message_Format).

I guess it's going to be a long slog before web-apps can match desktop apps
i agree there. i reckon it'll be an on-demand computing model that drives this adoption, rather than webapps being better desktop apps than desktop apps.

Is there an AIR version of it?
not that i've seen, but there certainly could be.

[s9tpepper]

Um, I heard of these before and they are either Widgets or Gadgets. The only new twist is that they look like applications. I even thought I saw some shareware available to set dashboard applications free. Anyone recall the name?

I like that Apple is Adobe-Free with regards to PDFs etc, so I hope nothing useful ever comes of this Hot-AIR project because I will have to go without it. I'd like to be Flash-Free.

I wonder if AIR takes about 30 seconds to load every Adobe plugin known to mankind, indicates an update is available every week, and uses 120MB of disk space. :confused:


Actually Adobe Integrated Runtime(AIR) allows for full on applications to be built. You can leverage either HTML/JavaScript, Flash, or Flex to create desktop applications. So yes you can create "gadgets/widgets", but you an also build full on desktop applications.

If you really want to go "Flash-free", you will be missing out on some neat applications.

And no, there won't be an update every week, and it uses about 15MB of hard drive space, about 10% of the JRE, or Java Runtime Environment, which is another multi-operating system runtime environment.

[Analog Kid]

backend is kind of a strange term here, since it's all client-side.


see AMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Message_Format).
By "backend" I mean the core application logic as opposed to the "frontend" which is the GUI.

AMF looks like it's client originated. Maybe I'm confusing what you meant by subscribers-- are you referring to individual application instances accessing shared data, or GUI elements accessing local data (like Cocoa's bindings)? The server can't access the clients over AMF, without the clients polling first, right?

[Toe]

What about this exactly is propietary?
Air runtime = free
Flash player = free & parts of it open sourced through mozilla
Flex SDK (for creating flash applications) = free & open source
Flash remoting (blaze ds) = free & open source
Creating html/ajax = free
Sql lite = free
pdf = open standard

Flex Builder and Creative Suite, which are quite proprietary. And most certainly not free (costing up to $700 and $1800 respectively).

Just like PDF is, as you say, an open standard and Acrobat Reader is free... but Acrobat Pro is startlingly expensive.

[s9tpepper]

Flex Builder and Creative Suite, which are quite proprietary. And most certainly not free (costing up to $700 and $1800 respectively).

Just like PDF is, as you say, an open standard and Acrobat Reader is free... but Acrobat Pro is startlingly expensive.

Actually Flex Builder is 249 dollars, but you can create Flex without the Flex Builder IDE, using the Flex SDK. And there are lots of ways to export and create PDFs.

[zimv20]

By "backend" I mean the core application logic as opposed to the "frontend" which is the GUI.
understood.


AMF looks like it's client originated. Maybe I'm confusing what you meant by subscribers-- are you referring to individual application instances accessing shared data, or GUI elements accessing local data (like Cocoa's bindings)? The server can't access the clients over AMF, without the clients polling first, right?

clients don't need to poll the server, they can subscribe to events and adobe's LiveCycle will push it out to them. this case is where you've got disparate client apps (like my ebay example) reflecting data changes made on the server.

but this kind of data binding also works intra-app. e.g. you can give, say, a Tree control what's called a data provider, and the framework will handle all the internal messaging and publishing details. what you get in this example is any update to the data provider (perhaps the XML model has a node added, and this could be from elsewhere w/in the app or a message from the server) results in the Tree control redrawing itself.

[zimv20]

hey, if anyone wants to see a code example that involves data binding, check out an adobe datagrid example (http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/201/langref/mx/controls/DataGrid.html#includeExamplesSummary).

there's some XML provided, and the datagrid is bound to that (so any changes to that model will update the datagrid view). there's also a form that's bound to the selected item in the datagrid, so that form updates each time an item is selected.

you can see how easy it is to set up that stuff in mxml, and the framework handles all the details of setting up the event listeners and broadcasting the change messages.

[Toe]

Actually Flex Builder is 249 dollars, but you can create Flex without the Flex Builder IDE, using the Flex SDK. And there are lots of ways to export and create PDFs.
In typical Adobe fashion, it's $250 for the Standard, $700 for the Pro.
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/buy/

And while there are plenty of ways to do PDF things, somehow they seem to be making a chunk of money off Acrobat.

(I'm not saying Adobe's the evil empire or anything, just pointing out that they do of course have a profit motive.)

[Analog Kid]

clients don't need to poll the server, they can subscribe to events and adobe's LiveCycle will push it out to them. this case is where you've got disparate client apps (like my ebay example) reflecting data changes made on the server.

but this kind of data binding also works intra-app. e.g. you can give, say, a Tree control what's called a data provider, and the framework will handle all the internal messaging and publishing details. what you get in this example is any update to the data provider (perhaps the XML model has a node added, and this could be from elsewhere w/in the app or a message from the server) results in the Tree control redrawing itself.
The AMF link you gave seems to indicate that it communicates over http-- which would make it tough for the server to contact a client unless the client polls, or if the client holds a control channel open... The other alternative would be to have the client app leave a hole open in the firewall and listen on a port.
hey, if anyone wants to see a code example that involves data binding, check out an adobe datagrid example (http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/201/langref/mx/controls/DataGrid.html#includeExamplesSummary).

there's some XML provided, and the datagrid is bound to that (so any changes to that model will update the datagrid view). there's also a form that's bound to the selected item in the datagrid, so that form updates each time an item is selected.

you can see how easy it is to set up that stuff in mxml, and the framework handles all the details of setting up the event listeners and broadcasting the change messages.
This use is very similar to Cocoa data bindings. Very nice for minimizing glue code...

[davepelz]

In typical Adobe fashion, it's $250 for the Standard, $700 for the Pro.
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/buy/

And while there are plenty of ways to do PDF things, somehow they seem to be making a chunk of money off Acrobat.

(I'm not saying Adobe's the evil empire or anything, just pointing out that they do of course have a profit motive.)

Yes of course they have a profit motive, they are a public company!

I think the point is that they don't force you into using flexbuilder or the creative suite, they just offer them as options. In many cases people already have them so they added some functionality for working with AIR.

And so they integrated all their software. I don't see the fault with this? Why wouldn't you make all your applications nicely integrated with a runtime you created and are offering for free?

Yes there are some advantages to using Fexbuilder over another IDE or Dreamweaver vs another text editor, but you certainly aren't crippled in your AIR development if you choose not to purchase them. In fact for flex developing some serious enterprise developers prefer not to use Flexbuilder.

So they have clearly made it a point for AIR to not require purchasing any Adobe software to develop for it, which is why I have a hard time understanding people complaining that AIR is part of this evil proprietary ecosystem. You can make an equally badass AIR application using no Adobe software.

The fact is the only thing that is proprietary is the runtime, and it is free.

[davepelz]

It seems like nobody is focusing on the "glass half full" scenario here. For example, how about an AJAX developer who's already using an open source IDE (or adobe competitor) who now has the ability to develop desktop applications for mac, windows and linux and all they have to do is download the free AIR SDK. How sweet a gift is that?

[Stratification]

It seems like nobody is focusing on the "glass half full" scenario here. For example, how about an AJAX developer who's already using an open source IDE (or adobe competitor) who now has the ability to develop desktop applications for mac, windows and linux and all they have to do is download the free AIR SDK. How sweet a gift is that?

Exactly, pair AIR with something like Aptana and some great apps can be made without a dime spent if that's the route you want to go.

[s9tpepper]

In typical Adobe fashion, it's $250 for the Standard, $700 for the Pro.
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/buy/

And while there are plenty of ways to do PDF things, somehow they seem to be making a chunk of money off Acrobat.

(I'm not saying Adobe's the evil empire or anything, just pointing out that they do of course have a profit motive.)

Of course they have a profit motive. They're not a non-profit organization. Do you work for free? I don't think so... Adobe is contributing to the Open Source community (Flex SDK, Tamarin) but at the same time they need to make money to keep bringing these technologies, so of course they charge. And you obviously have not used Flex Pro and Standard to see how much more you get from Flex Pro.