Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Releases AIR, Flex 3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
don't hate the acronym, hate the game.
yep, just like safari is a widget, or iPhoto or any of the other applications on your desktop.
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.
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...
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!
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%.
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.
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.
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.
adobe put out this press release that details some of the "toys" companies like NASDAQ, the New York Times, and DeutscheBank are offering with AIR.
Cost
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!
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!
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, just like Widgets are widgets-- encapsulated web apps that have limited access to local system resources.
You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....
(The answer isn't to surrender to vendor lock-in.)
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.
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?
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.
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
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. And for the love of TODD, tell them to stop using "AC_OETags.js." 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 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.
<]=)
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.
And for the love of TODD, tell them to stop using "AC_OETags.js." 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 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.
<]=)
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.
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?
I almost get the feeling there's a web _server_ wrapped in there too... Whatever app you open becomes DocumentRoot. Just a hunch...
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...
Core Animation could do it well enough...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
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?
Nothing for users to get excited about
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!
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!
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
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.
Flex/Air - excellent software
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.
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.
yeah, it's got its problem. my company worked on some of the component design , but were not responsible for anything else.
backend is kind of a strange term here, since it's all client-side.
see AMF.
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.
not that i've seen, but there certainly could be.
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.
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.
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?