Someone contacted me privately and asked me to spell out why this analogy was flawed.
Apple's server products (currently Mac Mini or Mac Pro, with OS X Lion Server software) are pretty clearly defined as a server for a workgroup or small company. There are file-sharing, mail-storage, VPN, backup, calendars, and a Wiki. For an all-Mac (or even a mostly-Mac) shop, I bet it does a pretty darn good job. A quad-core Mac Mini with a Thunderbolt RAID sounds pretty darn sweet for a group server. OTOH, I see no Apple claim that their rack-mount or current products would be a good fit for a generic website or Apple's own store. Have you seen any claims, @mkaake?
barring the oddity that someone actually contacted you privately to discuss why my previous analogy was flawed... I'm not quite sure what's with the tone. I'm not saying AIR is the best choice in any given application, just that it's another toolset available to a developer (and yes, you can deploy an AIR application without any flash involved - just saying).
My example, more to the point, was to say that Apple doesn't run their services off of xserves (not that they could anymore, as they don't sell xserves any more), they don't run them off of mac mini servers, and they don't run them off of server configured mac pro's. The reason is the same that adobe didn't try to create these 6 applications with AIR - it's the wrong toolset.
Apple doesn't make any claims on their site that a mac mini is a good fit for one of the busiest stores on the web; conversely, they also don't say that it's not a good fit. Same with Adobe and AIR - because to the people who actually *use* these tools, it's fairly obvious when and where you'd want to apply them. You'd have a very hard time finding an IT admin suggesting that a mac mini be configured to handle anything on the scale of apple's website, just like you'd have a hard time finding any programmer worth his salt suggesting that complex photo editing applications are best created using the AIR toolset.
I don't know. I've never seen any marketing literature that Flash should only be used for small and simple apps. Do you know something the rest of us don't know? Do you have a reference?
Again, might be a good idea to calm down a bit. First of all, AIR != Flash, and Flash != AIR. Secondly, the people who need to use these tools don't need to be told what they're a good fit for... just like you wouldn't try and tell a carpenter what type of hammer to use for a given type of job. They know - they're the people who *use* them.
If Adobe things Flash is great for delivering multi-platform solutions, why do they avoid using it for that purpose themselves?
Adobe thinks its great to have an easy means of deploying applications between multiple environments with minimal hassle, and even better for them if they can continue to get people to use their software.
End of the day, though I find this whole thread pretty entertaining, here's my opinion on the subject - if I were wanting to deploy a fart app to mutiple OS's, AIR seems like it would be a pretty solid fit - code once, compile for multiple platforms, and done.
Does that mean its the end all be all? No, not at all. Does it mean you'll be making world class applications using AIR? No, not really. But it also doesn't preclude that you can make a world class application with AIR. I'll toss back your own example of Machnarium - it spent 3 days at #1 - and how many applications developed natively can say that?
If a programmer does his job right, you'll never *know* what program was used to compile code. Nor should you particularly care. If you are using an app and are unhappy with its performance or interface, don't use it. And if you're using an app that you're thrilled with performance wise and interface wise, why does it matter if it was built using xcode or AIR?
