|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > April 2005 > Living in fear...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Simon Lord 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| It's nice to see people thinking, or trying to think, positively about
this merger. But I'm freaked out a little over it, I don't find Adobe
to be that good a software company with respect to commitments to
improve those products over time. Sure, they can do postscript and
photoshop really well but what else?
1- Adobe buys Aldus, PageMaker stagnates. (but fontographer and
freehand thrive at Macromedia)
2- Adobe buys Cyberstudio because pagemill (now cancelled) is really
pathetic, the Golive product goes stagnant and stays at v5 for 2 years
without ANY support or bug fixes.
3- Golive 6 comes out and everyone wants to know what they fixed,
because ALL the bugs from 5 are still there (I was a bug tester and
user, I switched to Dreamweaver). CS comes out and a wave of people
switch to Dreamweaver as well.
4- Adobe creates Livemotion to compete with Flash. It stagnates (I own
it and it really sucks). It stays at v2 then they cancel it.
5- Adobe drops support for premier on the mac because they are upset
with Apple's FCP. Apparently Steve upsets them. FCP continues to
steal market share (post houses are principally based on SGI's and
Macs.)
6- Adobe resists OSX development to this day, all Mac products are
still Carbon apps. FrameMaker is still not OSX compatible.
7- Adobe creates ImageReady, no one wants it. They have to give it
away for free.
8- Adobe creates SVG format and a *viewer*. Wow. A few students write a
thesis on it.
9- Adobe Streamline stays at v4 for 10yrs, still at v4. I bought v3,
still have it. No need to update since v4 has nothing to offer.
I stopped thinking of Adobe as a creative company, acquired products
seem to stagnate, and they repackage PDF and Photoshop into bizarre
offerings. All the while collecting huge royalties for Postscript.
This is not flamebait, I'm just trying to figure out how I feel about
this. I really don't like it at the moment. Even while I was a beta
tester for the Adobe Digital Suite and Golive I could never email a
developer directly. It was VERY frustrating to always communicate with
Adobe via an online form which obviously goes nowhere. At least with
MM the employees appear to be free to have blogs and talk to the users,
hell, Peldi and others write code for us!
I guess I'm just "doing it". All the worst case scenarios are playing
out in my head. I just don't see good things ahead.
Sincerely,
Simon
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Simon Lord 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| LOL, just read an article that says "Adobe Systems Inc buys Macromedia
for 3.4B. New company to be called Adobe Systems Inc".
That just about says what I feel. Nothing will change with how Adobe
does things. I just spent 2yrs moving away from their products only to
get sucked back in through a merger. This blows.
On Apr 18, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Simon Lord wrote:
> It's nice to see people thinking, or trying to think, positively about
> this merger. But I'm freaked out a little over it, I don't find Adobe
> to be that good a software company with respect to commitments to
> improve those products over time. Sure, they can do postscript and
> photoshop really well but what else?
>
> 1- Adobe buys Aldus, PageMaker stagnates. (but fontographer and
> freehand thrive at Macromedia)
> 2- Adobe buys Cyberstudio because pagemill (now cancelled) is really
> pathetic, the Golive product goes stagnant and stays at v5 for 2 years
> without ANY support or bug fixes.
> 3- Golive 6 comes out and everyone wants to know what they fixed,
> because ALL the bugs from 5 are still there (I was a bug tester and
> user, I switched to Dreamweaver). CS comes out and a wave of people
> switch to Dreamweaver as well.
> 4- Adobe creates Livemotion to compete with Flash. It stagnates (I
> own it and it really sucks). It stays at v2 then they cancel it.
> 5- Adobe drops support for premier on the mac because they are upset
> with Apple's FCP. Apparently Steve upsets them. FCP continues to
> steal market share (post houses are principally based on SGI's and
> Macs.)
> 6- Adobe resists OSX development to this day, all Mac products are
> still Carbon apps. FrameMaker is still not OSX compatible.
> 7- Adobe creates ImageReady, no one wants it. They have to give it
> away for free.
> 8- Adobe creates SVG format and a *viewer*. Wow. A few students write
> a thesis on it.
> 9- Adobe Streamline stays at v4 for 10yrs, still at v4. I bought v3,
> still have it. No need to update since v4 has nothing to offer.
>
> I stopped thinking of Adobe as a creative company, acquired products
> seem to stagnate, and they repackage PDF and Photoshop into bizarre
> offerings. All the while collecting huge royalties for Postscript.
>
> This is not flamebait, I'm just trying to figure out how I feel about
> this. I really don't like it at the moment. Even while I was a beta
> tester for the Adobe Digital Suite and Golive I could never email a
> developer directly. It was VERY frustrating to always communicate
> with Adobe via an online form which obviously goes nowhere. At least
> with MM the employees appear to be free to have blogs and talk to the
> users, hell, Peldi and others write code for us!
>
> I guess I'm just "doing it". All the worst case scenarios are playing
> out in my head. I just don't see good things ahead.
>
> Sincerely,
> Simon
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
Sincerely,
Simon
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Stefan Richter 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| You got a point, Macromedia being gone for good just can't be that much of a
good thing. And you hit the nail on the head about the stagnation of
development on some products as well as the hard-to-contact mentality at
Adobe. But apparently the openness of Macromedia was one of the things that
Adobe liked and wanted to have for themselves.
If the company culture changes very much from how Macromedia has handled
things then I can see dark clouds on the horizon.
I would somehow feel better if say Apple had bought them but maybe they
haven't got the small change that was needed. Adobe... It's another world
really.
No choice but to wait and see :-/
No doubt some good AND some bad will come of it.
Stefan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
> Simon Lord
> Sent: 18 April 2005 15:40
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
> LOL, just read an article that says "Adobe Systems Inc buys
> Macromedia for 3.4B. New company to be called Adobe Systems Inc".
>
> That just about says what I feel. Nothing will change with
> how Adobe does things. I just spent 2yrs moving away from
> their products only to get sucked back in through a merger.
> This blows.
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Simon Lord wrote:
>
> positively about
> find Adobe
> is really
> for 2 years
> are upset
> students write
> bought v3,
> products
> feel about
> was a beta
> At least
> talk to the
> are playing
> Sincerely,
> Simon
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Melvyn Song Kian Guan 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| Lets keep it positive here!!!
At least its not Microsoft? Anyone for MCAD certification !???
Its a pity Macromedia has to go after 20 years of defining the web.
Melvyn
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces@chattyfig.figleaf.com on behalf of Stefan Richter
Sent: Mon 4/18/2005 10:57 PM
To: 'FlashComm Mailing List'
Cc:
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
You got a point, Macromedia being gone for good just can't be that much of a
good thing. And you hit the nail on the head about the stagnation of
development on some products as well as the hard-to-contact mentality at
Adobe. But apparently the openness of Macromedia was one of the things that
Adobe liked and wanted to have for themselves.
If the company culture changes very much from how Macromedia has handled
things then I can see dark clouds on the horizon.
I would somehow feel better if say Apple had bought them but maybe they
haven't got the small change that was needed. Adobe... It's another world
really.
No choice but to wait and see :-/
No doubt some good AND some bad will come of it.
Stefan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of
> Simon Lord
> Sent: 18 April 2005 15:40
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
> LOL, just read an article that says "Adobe Systems Inc buys
> Macromedia for 3.4B. New company to be called Adobe Systems Inc".
>
> That just about says what I feel. Nothing will change with
> how Adobe does things. I just spent 2yrs moving away from
> their products only to get sucked back in through a merger.
> This blows.
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Simon Lord wrote:
>
> > It's nice to see people thinking, or trying to think,
> positively about
> > this merger. But I'm freaked out a little over it, I don't
> find Adobe
> > to be that good a software company with respect to commitments to
> > improve those products over time. Sure, they can do postscript and
> > photoshop really well but what else?
> >
> > 1- Adobe buys Aldus, PageMaker stagnates. (but fontographer and
> > freehand thrive at Macromedia)
> > 2- Adobe buys Cyberstudio because pagemill (now cancelled)
> is really
> > pathetic, the Golive product goes stagnant and stays at v5
> for 2 years
> > without ANY support or bug fixes.
> > 3- Golive 6 comes out and everyone wants to know what they fixed,
> > because ALL the bugs from 5 are still there (I was a bug tester and
> > user, I switched to Dreamweaver). CS comes out and a wave of people
> > switch to Dreamweaver as well.
> > 4- Adobe creates Livemotion to compete with Flash. It stagnates (I
> > own it and it really sucks). It stays at v2 then they cancel it.
> > 5- Adobe drops support for premier on the mac because they
> are upset
> > with Apple's FCP. Apparently Steve upsets them. FCP continues to
> > steal market share (post houses are principally based on SGI's and
> > Macs.)
> > 6- Adobe resists OSX development to this day, all Mac products are
> > still Carbon apps. FrameMaker is still not OSX compatible.
> > 7- Adobe creates ImageReady, no one wants it. They have to give it
> > away for free.
> > 8- Adobe creates SVG format and a *viewer*. Wow. A few
> students write
> > a thesis on it.
> > 9- Adobe Streamline stays at v4 for 10yrs, still at v4. I
> bought v3,
> > still have it. No need to update since v4 has nothing to offer.
> >
> > I stopped thinking of Adobe as a creative company, acquired
> products
> > seem to stagnate, and they repackage PDF and Photoshop into bizarre
> > offerings. All the while collecting huge royalties for Postscript.
> >
> > This is not flamebait, I'm just trying to figure out how I
> feel about
> > this. I really don't like it at the moment. Even while I
> was a beta
> > tester for the Adobe Digital Suite and Golive I could never email a
> > developer directly. It was VERY frustrating to always communicate
> > with Adobe via an online form which obviously goes nowhere.
> At least
> > with MM the employees appear to be free to have blogs and
> talk to the
> > users, hell, Peldi and others write code for us!
> >
> > I guess I'm just "doing it". All the worst case scenarios
> are playing
> > out in my head. I just don't see good things ahead.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> > Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
> >
> >
> Sincerely,
> Simon
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Simon Lord 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| I'll tell you what, a sign that the merger is going south FAST will be
if Adobe *keeps* ImageReady (which makes ZERO revenue and really kinda
sucks (it also changes the creator type of anything it opens, even
PSD's)) and kills off Fireworks (a product people WANT to pay for and
actually like (I own both)).
Another is bloat. The Acrobat plugin is over 2MB's in size and all it
does is launch Acrobat in the background!!!
Flash exporting and supporting SVG = more bloat. And it's sure to
happen.
Illustrator is 10MB larger than Freehand and in my experience does LESS
(I own both). Illustrator is also dog slow for whatever reason,
Freehand has always rendered the page quickly and the file sizes of my
drawings are always a MINIMUM of 50% smaller in Freehand than when
saved as Illustrator format for clients.
I hope they do good by Macromedia and fire all their current Adobe
management and stick the current Macromedia team in their place (and
let them redo the horrible adobe site). Otherwise it will become a
pissing contest between teams and the Macromedia products will be the
ones to suffer. And that will be the start of stagnation IMHO. It
will happen, not hard to predict as this is the recorded trend at
Adobe.
Well, at least Adobe ships printed manuals... (little poke at MM ;)
On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Melvyn Song Kian Guan wrote:
> Lets keep it positive here!!!
> At least its not Microsoft? Anyone for MCAD certification !???
> Its a pity Macromedia has to go after 20 years of defining the web.
>
> Melvyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org on behalf of Stefan
> Richter
> Sent: Mon 4/18/2005 10:57 PM
> To: 'FlashComm Mailing List'
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
>
>
> You got a point, Macromedia being gone for good just can't be that
> much of a
> good thing. And you hit the nail on the head about the stagnation of
> development on some products as well as the hard-to-contact mentality
> at
> Adobe. But apparently the openness of Macromedia was one of the
> things that
> Adobe liked and wanted to have for themselves.
> If the company culture changes very much from how Macromedia has
> handled
> things then I can see dark clouds on the horizon.
>
> I would somehow feel better if say Apple had bought them but maybe
> they
> haven't got the small change that was needed. Adobe... It's another
> world
> really.
>
> No choice but to wait and see :-/
> No doubt some good AND some bad will come of it.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> > [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
> > Simon Lord
> > Sent: 18 April 2005 15:40
> > To: FlashComm Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
> >
> > LOL, just read an article that says "Adobe Systems Inc buys
> > Macromedia for 3.4B. New company to be called Adobe Systems Inc".
> >
> > That just about says what I feel. Nothing will change with
> > how Adobe does things. I just spent 2yrs moving away from
> > their products only to get sucked back in through a merger.
> > This blows.
> >
> >
> > On Apr 18, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Simon Lord wrote:
> >
> > > It's nice to see people thinking, or trying to think,
> > positively about
> > > this merger. But I'm freaked out a little over it, I don't
> > find Adobe
> > > to be that good a software company with respect to commitments to
> > > improve those products over time. Sure, they can do postscript
> and
> > > photoshop really well but what else?
> > >
> > > 1- Adobe buys Aldus, PageMaker stagnates. (but fontographer and
> > > freehand thrive at Macromedia)
> > > 2- Adobe buys Cyberstudio because pagemill (now cancelled)
> > is really
> > > pathetic, the Golive product goes stagnant and stays at v5
> > for 2 years
> > > without ANY support or bug fixes.
> > > 3- Golive 6 comes out and everyone wants to know what they fixed,
> > > because ALL the bugs from 5 are still there (I was a bug tester
> and
> > > user, I switched to Dreamweaver). CS comes out and a wave of
> people
> > > switch to Dreamweaver as well.
> > > 4- Adobe creates Livemotion to compete with Flash. It stagnates
> (I
> > > own it and it really sucks). It stays at v2 then they cancel it.
> > > 5- Adobe drops support for premier on the mac because they
> > are upset
> > > with Apple's FCP. Apparently Steve upsets them. FCP continues to
> > > steal market share (post houses are principally based on SGI's and
> > > Macs.)
> > > 6- Adobe resists OSX development to this day, all Mac products are
> > > still Carbon apps. FrameMaker is still not OSX compatible.
> > > 7- Adobe creates ImageReady, no one wants it. They have to give
> it
> > > away for free.
> > > 8- Adobe creates SVG format and a *viewer*. Wow. A few
> > students write
> > > a thesis on it.
> > > 9- Adobe Streamline stays at v4 for 10yrs, still at v4. I
> > bought v3,
> > > still have it. No need to update since v4 has nothing to offer.
> > >
> > > I stopped thinking of Adobe as a creative company, acquired
> > products
> > > seem to stagnate, and they repackage PDF and Photoshop into
> bizarre
> > > offerings. All the while collecting huge royalties for
> Postscript.
> > >
> > > This is not flamebait, I'm just trying to figure out how I
> > feel about
> > > this. I really don't like it at the moment. Even while I
> > was a beta
> > > tester for the Adobe Digital Suite and Golive I could never email
> a
> > > developer directly. It was VERY frustrating to always communicate
> > > with Adobe via an online form which obviously goes nowhere.
> > At least
> > > with MM the employees appear to be free to have blogs and
> > talk to the
> > > users, hell, Peldi and others write code for us!
> > >
> > > I guess I'm just "doing it". All the worst case scenarios
> > are playing
> > > out in my head. I just don't see good things ahead.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
> > > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> > > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
> > >
> > >
> > Sincerely,
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> > Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> > =-----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
> >
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
Sincerely,
Simon
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Randy Tinfow 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| > Another is bloat. The Acrobat plugin is over 2MB's in size and all it
> does is launch Acrobat in the background!!!<
We do a lot of Acrobat authoring. I'm trying to shift it to FPpaper,
but it's not an easy sell, despite how ponderous Acrobat is.
> Flash exporting and supporting SVG =3D more bloat. And it's sure to
> happen.<
Does the SVG format having anything to offer?
RT
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Simon Lord 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| > Does the SVG format having anything to offer?
Here's an old article on Oreillynet.com which sums things up in 2 pages.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/jav..._not_flash.html
.... the closing paragraph sums it up nicely. And it also points
directly to Adobe shoving SVG support into Flash possibly as soon as
8Ball.
I don't think Adobe is going to let go of SVG, they strike me as being
a bitter corporation. They'll shove SVG into Flash and declare victory
over the SWF format (finally).
It'll be interesting to see how this all works out for *us* in the the
end.
> RT
>
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
Sincerely,
Simon
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Randy Tinfow 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| > they strike me as being a bitter corporation. They'll shove SVG into
Flash and declare victory over the SWF format (finally).<
I'm an idealist. I don't believe corporations have angst. They just
want to maximize income.
RT=20
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Darron J. Schall 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| Simon Lord wrote:
> I don't think Adobe is going to let go of SVG, they strike me as being
> a bitter corporation. They'll shove SVG into Flash and declare
> victory over the SWF format (finally).
>
Please stop with the FUD. I don't think Adobe is going to "shove" SVG
into Flash at all. In my opinion, Adobe bought Macromedia *because of*
Flash, so they're not going to try to "declare victory" over it.
Between Flash and Flex, there's your XML markup with vector graphics
playback capability already, which is just what SVG is. Adobe
recognizes that the Flash Player is better than the SVG player they
have, and there's nothing to be afraid of.
This is a huge win for both companies. Adobe gets a ubiqutious platform
to deploy their video products on, and the Flash Player gets much deeper
pockets for funding. The product lines complement each other well..
Most of the Flash Designers I work with use Illustrator and then export
to Flash as the last step. Combing the two is a much better workflow.
Because of Adobe's support of open standards, and Macromedia being an
ECMA memeber, we might even see a "more open" swf format..
> It'll be interesting to see how this all works out for *us* in the the
> end.
I think we'll all be fine. In fact, I think we'll all be in a muich
better position, with a much better toolset. To speculate, I like Adobe
+ Macromedia vs. Microsoft a *lot* better in the RIA space. Remember,
Avalon is around the corner, and RIA is the future of development.
Flash is going to get even bigger, and its positioned to continue to be
*the* platform for delivering rich user experiences on.
-d
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brian Lesser 2005-04-18, 5:45 pm |
| Actually, having SVG in Flash might be a good thing and both companies
have aquired and subsequently killed products - I can't say who is
"worse" on that score. After trying to listen to a recording of the
conference call three things jumped out:
1. complete video workflow (ie from capture to player)
2. PDF + RIA
3. Acrobat + Breeze
My little brain can't even imagine how the items in 2 or 3 will come
together...
I doubt anyone's worst fears or their highest hopes will be realised.
Mergers are difficult to execute.
Cheers,
-Brian
Randy Tinfow wrote:
>Flash and declare victory over the SWF format (finally).<
>
>I'm an idealist. I don't believe corporations have angst. They just
>want to maximize income.
>
>RT
>
>
>
>=---------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=---------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Phillip Kerman 2005-04-21, 2:45 am |
| I totally agree that we'll all be fine. But I think there's just as much
validity to the FUD as there is to the speculation that things will be
better.
One question--sort of a hot button for me and FCS is whether... after the
merger... Adobe will follow the trend to services or turnkey
services--namely Breeze w/special features not in the main product. I don't
think Adobe has anything like this now (that is, a product that arguably
competes with their customers).
Thanks,
Phillip
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brian Lesser 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Hi Phillip,
I think the trend you are describing will continue as both companies
likely see the medium to large enterprise and government markets as the
places to leverage their platforms. I'm not an expert in such things and
have no inside information but it is fun to speculate:
I would guess you will see a gradual build out of more full featured
platforms for electronic document/digital media management,
collaboration, and distribution followed by extending those platforms
into larger vertical applications.
I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to examine
as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as a
real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not an
instant market success. It takes time and a lot of work/cash to
establish a new computing platform and attract third-party developer
interest. Even if FlashCom 1.0 had shipped with vastly improved
documentation, more full-featured components, and more advanced tools
for integration into the enterprise, I have no idea how much faster the
take up would have been. (I guess it would have been faster but wouldn't
guess by how much.) Small independent development shops are addicted to
free or inexpensive tools. It is very hard for a company like Macromedia
to sell expensive server products via small developers - if not
impossible. If Macromedia had come out with greatly reduced licensing
fees the take-up might have been a lot faster but no one knows what the
actual revenue would have been. To really sell a new server into the
current market you need something closer to a working application. To
use the Flash/FlashCom platform to develop a corporate application
Macromedia had to:
- integrate with MS Office (PowerPoint)
- extend the Flash plugin to work more closely with the MS desktop OS
(file sharing and screen capture)
- integrate with a back-end application/database to manage meeting rooms
and content..(including integration with MS Outlook).
From Peldi's FITC presentation you can see things like Flash paper and
Captivate will offer other ways to get content into Breeze. And now I
think I read that Contribute can hook into content stored in Breeze's
content repository. Extending the idea further I would guess we'll see
things like real-time document review and management in Breeze. Or, down
the road, Breeze being integrated into some uber document/digital media
management system... I wonder if you'll be able to present and edit a
corporate report in Breeze/InDesign from your content management system,
get official sign off, and then distribute it to the public.
I've read in blogs that Adobe doesn't know anything about supporting
developers. I'm not sure how good Macromedia is at that either.
Supporting a developer community is very expensive. IBM spent $40
million developing Eclipse before giving it away. I don't think
Macromedia wants to do that sort of thing. Today both Adobe and
Macromedia want to support integration of their platform with
enterprise-level integrators. Look at the Breeze API as one example:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/br...b_services.html
and then at Adobe as another:
http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
Today FlashCom is also a success for Macromedia because it has some
unique features in the streaming space that some large service providers
and media corporations can sell or need. Again I don't think the small
developer market is a big factor.
So it looks like FlashCom became a success when Macromedia could offer
FlashCom based applications to industry. In other words, when they found
a way to build and sell large and more expensive applications. Now lets
consider a couple of less successful Macromedia ventures. Flash Remoting
was a small server-side product that added something to the Flash
platform. Instead of charging a nominal fee to enrich Flash as an
over-all development platform, Macromedia tried to charge real money for
it. It was reverse engineered and now will only see value for Macromedia
as an enhancement to Coldfusion and Flex. I don't think Macromedia
really wanted to make that kind of "donation." Coldfusion's server-side
ActionScript is a complete failure. It only exists because someone at
Macromedia wanted to give Flash developers a way to work in Coldfusion.
In other words to sell Coldfusion via Flash developers. The first and
only release of Coldfusion/ActionScript was half baked. You had to use
strings to build SQL statements and there was no access to stored
procedures, LDAP and other features CFML provides. I doubt
Coldfusion/ActionScript sold a single copy of Coldfusion. Now it is just
an extra piece of CFMX that has to be maintained in new releases. So
Macromedia is probably losing money on it - and I'll bet they hate doing
that. When I look at what happened with Remoting and
Coldfusion/ActionScript I don't see much of a commitment to stay the
course for Flash developers. A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe have been
cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We may also
see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe. But if we don't see
better components and a we do see a continued drive to the Flex
server... well I think that says something loud and clear to Flash
developers. Personally, I think that will be a long term mistake if it
goes that way but I can't prove it.
So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
small developers can't touch except via integration of larger vertical
applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is for Adobe. If
it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft will not
sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large and vibrant
developer community and the cash to support it...
Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
guess that providers of content management systems are more at risk than
the small Flash developer over the long term.
Yours truly,
-Brian
Phillip Kerman wrote:
>I totally agree that we'll all be fine. But I think there's just as much
>validity to the FUD as there is to the speculation that things will be
>better.
>
>One question--sort of a hot button for me and FCS is whether... after the
>merger... Adobe will follow the trend to services or turnkey
>services--namely Breeze w/special features not in the main product. I don't
>think Adobe has anything like this now (that is, a product that arguably
>competes with their customers).
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| JesterXL 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
Developers to do; use Flex.
Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a job
with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's age;
as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be left
up to Flex.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
Hi Phillip,
I think the trend you are describing will continue as both companies
likely see the medium to large enterprise and government markets as the
places to leverage their platforms. I'm not an expert in such things and
have no inside information but it is fun to speculate:
I would guess you will see a gradual build out of more full featured
platforms for electronic document/digital media management,
collaboration, and distribution followed by extending those platforms
into larger vertical applications.
I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to examine
as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as a
real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not an
instant market success. It takes time and a lot of work/cash to
establish a new computing platform and attract third-party developer
interest. Even if FlashCom 1.0 had shipped with vastly improved
documentation, more full-featured components, and more advanced tools
for integration into the enterprise, I have no idea how much faster the
take up would have been. (I guess it would have been faster but wouldn't
guess by how much.) Small independent development shops are addicted to
free or inexpensive tools. It is very hard for a company like Macromedia
to sell expensive server products via small developers - if not
impossible. If Macromedia had come out with greatly reduced licensing
fees the take-up might have been a lot faster but no one knows what the
actual revenue would have been. To really sell a new server into the
current market you need something closer to a working application. To
use the Flash/FlashCom platform to develop a corporate application
Macromedia had to:
- integrate with MS Office (PowerPoint)
- extend the Flash plugin to work more closely with the MS desktop OS
(file sharing and screen capture)
- integrate with a back-end application/database to manage meeting rooms
and content..(including integration with MS Outlook).
From Peldi's FITC presentation you can see things like Flash paper and
Captivate will offer other ways to get content into Breeze. And now I
think I read that Contribute can hook into content stored in Breeze's
content repository. Extending the idea further I would guess we'll see
things like real-time document review and management in Breeze. Or, down
the road, Breeze being integrated into some uber document/digital media
management system... I wonder if you'll be able to present and edit a
corporate report in Breeze/InDesign from your content management system,
get official sign off, and then distribute it to the public.
I've read in blogs that Adobe doesn't know anything about supporting
developers. I'm not sure how good Macromedia is at that either.
Supporting a developer community is very expensive. IBM spent $40
million developing Eclipse before giving it away. I don't think
Macromedia wants to do that sort of thing. Today both Adobe and
Macromedia want to support integration of their platform with
enterprise-level integrators. Look at the Breeze API as one example:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/br...b_services.html
and then at Adobe as another:
http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
Today FlashCom is also a success for Macromedia because it has some
unique features in the streaming space that some large service providers
and media corporations can sell or need. Again I don't think the small
developer market is a big factor.
So it looks like FlashCom became a success when Macromedia could offer
FlashCom based applications to industry. In other words, when they found
a way to build and sell large and more expensive applications. Now lets
consider a couple of less successful Macromedia ventures. Flash Remoting
was a small server-side product that added something to the Flash
platform. Instead of charging a nominal fee to enrich Flash as an
over-all development platform, Macromedia tried to charge real money for
it. It was reverse engineered and now will only see value for Macromedia
as an enhancement to Coldfusion and Flex. I don't think Macromedia
really wanted to make that kind of "donation." Coldfusion's server-side
ActionScript is a complete failure. It only exists because someone at
Macromedia wanted to give Flash developers a way to work in Coldfusion.
In other words to sell Coldfusion via Flash developers. The first and
only release of Coldfusion/ActionScript was half baked. You had to use
strings to build SQL statements and there was no access to stored
procedures, LDAP and other features CFML provides. I doubt
Coldfusion/ActionScript sold a single copy of Coldfusion. Now it is just
an extra piece of CFMX that has to be maintained in new releases. So
Macromedia is probably losing money on it - and I'll bet they hate doing
that. When I look at what happened with Remoting and
Coldfusion/ActionScript I don't see much of a commitment to stay the
course for Flash developers. A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe have been
cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We may also
see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe. But if we don't see
better components and a we do see a continued drive to the Flex
server... well I think that says something loud and clear to Flash
developers. Personally, I think that will be a long term mistake if it
goes that way but I can't prove it.
So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
small developers can't touch except via integration of larger vertical
applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is for Adobe. If
it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft will not
sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large and vibrant
developer community and the cash to support it...
Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
guess that providers of content management systems are more at risk than
the small Flash developer over the long term.
Yours truly,
-Brian
Phillip Kerman wrote:
>I totally agree that we'll all be fine. But I think there's just as much
>validity to the FUD as there is to the speculation that things will be
>better.
>
>One question--sort of a hot button for me and FCS is whether... after the
>merger... Adobe will follow the trend to services or turnkey
>services--namely Breeze w/special features not in the main product. I
>don't
>think Adobe has anything like this now (that is, a product that arguably
>competes with their customers).
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brian Lesser 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Hi Jesse,
But can you create components in Flex??... and you still need to buy the
server in order to have a working swf right?
-B
JesterXL wrote:
>It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
>Developers to do; use Flex.
>
>Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
>delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a job
>with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
>
>I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's age;
>as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
>product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
>predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
>support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
>real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be left
>up to Flex.
>
>
>
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| JesterXL 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Yes, you can create components, and auto-compile them to SWC with code hints
without rebooting FlexBuilder.
Yes, you need to purchase the server to have a working SWF; but viewing Flex
as a SWF compiler on the server is a gross misunderstanding of what Flex
truly is.
However, Macromedia realizes that many companies don't need a server, and
are willing to work with you; the Flex team in general is very open about
wanting to work with people. Some people can even deploy OEM if need be;
you only pay till you get paid type of deal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
Hi Jesse,
But can you create components in Flex??... and you still need to buy the
server in order to have a working swf right?
-B
JesterXL wrote:
>It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
>Developers to do; use Flex.
>
>Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
>delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a
>job
>with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
>
>I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's
>age;
>as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
>product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
>predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
>support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
>real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be
>left
>up to Flex.
>
>
>
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| JesterXL 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Actually, the only real saving grace for me (if I cannot get my current
employer to utilize Flex) beyond whatever the future of Central becomes, is
devices. Coding in Flash 4 is, for me, a joke and a complete waste of my
time.
....however, I wouldn't mind coding in AS2 for a phone if the new version of
Flast Lite does in fact come out later this year; I've already got the dough
just waiting to be spent on whatever Flash Lite enabled phone nokia comes
out with.
Flex is positioned in the web sphere, so that leaves Central to ownzer on
the desktop, and Flash Lite to ownzer on devices. All the Java/J2EE guyz
care about is integrating a nice presenting tire replacement for their
pathetic JSP; Flex does that nicely, and removes any need whatsoever for
hiring a Flash developer; 1 or more. It's frustrating, too, because
suddenly they assume all front-end work can be done without people trained
in front-end development, and more akin to what Flex offers... hopefully
it's just a wave.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JesterXL" <jesterxl-RyEax5csP4NCVeB36W80OQ@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
Developers to do; use Flex.
Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a job
with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's age;
as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be left
up to Flex.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
Hi Phillip,
I think the trend you are describing will continue as both companies
likely see the medium to large enterprise and government markets as the
places to leverage their platforms. I'm not an expert in such things and
have no inside information but it is fun to speculate:
I would guess you will see a gradual build out of more full featured
platforms for electronic document/digital media management,
collaboration, and distribution followed by extending those platforms
into larger vertical applications.
I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to examine
as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as a
real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not an
instant market success. It takes time and a lot of work/cash to
establish a new computing platform and attract third-party developer
interest. Even if FlashCom 1.0 had shipped with vastly improved
documentation, more full-featured components, and more advanced tools
for integration into the enterprise, I have no idea how much faster the
take up would have been. (I guess it would have been faster but wouldn't
guess by how much.) Small independent development shops are addicted to
free or inexpensive tools. It is very hard for a company like Macromedia
to sell expensive server products via small developers - if not
impossible. If Macromedia had come out with greatly reduced licensing
fees the take-up might have been a lot faster but no one knows what the
actual revenue would have been. To really sell a new server into the
current market you need something closer to a working application. To
use the Flash/FlashCom platform to develop a corporate application
Macromedia had to:
- integrate with MS Office (PowerPoint)
- extend the Flash plugin to work more closely with the MS desktop OS
(file sharing and screen capture)
- integrate with a back-end application/database to manage meeting rooms
and content..(including integration with MS Outlook).
From Peldi's FITC presentation you can see things like Flash paper and
Captivate will offer other ways to get content into Breeze. And now I
think I read that Contribute can hook into content stored in Breeze's
content repository. Extending the idea further I would guess we'll see
things like real-time document review and management in Breeze. Or, down
the road, Breeze being integrated into some uber document/digital media
management system... I wonder if you'll be able to present and edit a
corporate report in Breeze/InDesign from your content management system,
get official sign off, and then distribute it to the public.
I've read in blogs that Adobe doesn't know anything about supporting
developers. I'm not sure how good Macromedia is at that either.
Supporting a developer community is very expensive. IBM spent $40
million developing Eclipse before giving it away. I don't think
Macromedia wants to do that sort of thing. Today both Adobe and
Macromedia want to support integration of their platform with
enterprise-level integrators. Look at the Breeze API as one example:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/br...b_services.html
and then at Adobe as another:
http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
Today FlashCom is also a success for Macromedia because it has some
unique features in the streaming space that some large service providers
and media corporations can sell or need. Again I don't think the small
developer market is a big factor.
So it looks like FlashCom became a success when Macromedia could offer
FlashCom based applications to industry. In other words, when they found
a way to build and sell large and more expensive applications. Now lets
consider a couple of less successful Macromedia ventures. Flash Remoting
was a small server-side product that added something to the Flash
platform. Instead of charging a nominal fee to enrich Flash as an
over-all development platform, Macromedia tried to charge real money for
it. It was reverse engineered and now will only see value for Macromedia
as an enhancement to Coldfusion and Flex. I don't think Macromedia
really wanted to make that kind of "donation." Coldfusion's server-side
ActionScript is a complete failure. It only exists because someone at
Macromedia wanted to give Flash developers a way to work in Coldfusion.
In other words to sell Coldfusion via Flash developers. The first and
only release of Coldfusion/ActionScript was half baked. You had to use
strings to build SQL statements and there was no access to stored
procedures, LDAP and other features CFML provides. I doubt
Coldfusion/ActionScript sold a single copy of Coldfusion. Now it is just
an extra piece of CFMX that has to be maintained in new releases. So
Macromedia is probably losing money on it - and I'll bet they hate doing
that. When I look at what happened with Remoting and
Coldfusion/ActionScript I don't see much of a commitment to stay the
course for Flash developers. A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe have been
cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We may also
see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe. But if we don't see
better components and a we do see a continued drive to the Flex
server... well I think that says something loud and clear to Flash
developers. Personally, I think that will be a long term mistake if it
goes that way but I can't prove it.
So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
small developers can't touch except via integration of larger vertical
applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is for Adobe. If
it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft will not
sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large and vibrant
developer community and the cash to support it...
Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
guess that providers of content management systems are more at risk than
the small Flash developer over the long term.
Yours truly,
-Brian
Phillip Kerman wrote:
>I totally agree that we'll all be fine. But I think there's just as much
>validity to the FUD as there is to the speculation that things will be
>better.
>
>One question--sort of a hot button for me and FCS is whether... after the
>merger... Adobe will follow the trend to services or turnkey
>services--namely Breeze w/special features not in the main product. I
>don't
>think Adobe has anything like this now (that is, a product that arguably
>competes with their customers).
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Phillip Kerman 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| > A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
> From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe
> have been
> cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
> Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We
> may also
> see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe
That's interesting. I have no info that they've been planning this for a
while--no doubt some of the management sorts have. But, a) I don't think
the UI designers had ANY clue because if they did it would have leaked out
and b)from the public screen views of 8ball I didn't notice the Adobe UI
signature.
> So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
> small developers can't touch except via integration of larger
> vertical
> applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is
> for Adobe. If
> it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft
> will not
> sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large
> and vibrant
> developer community and the cash to support it...
I think this offering makes it very difficult for me or my clients to build
truly custom apps. If Breeze Live was needed to make FCS a hit then I'd say
it totally failed. What has made FCS a hit is one thing: video. Did Breeze
Live really affect the existing players in the online meeting space? We all
know how cool FCS is... and Breeze is a great example a turnkey FCS app. I
really need to study the openness of the Breeze but it really doesn't look
like there's a ton there. (I could be wrong... I hope there's more
opportunities to come though.)
By the way, I do think that FCS still has more potential. Not really sure
why it didn't take off as I expected.
>
> Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
> industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
> guess that providers of content management systems are more
> at risk than
> the small Flash developer over the long term.
For sure.. never thought of that one. I'm glad too that this is not an
interesting biz to me.
Regarding Jesse's view of the Flex takeover... I don't know. Sure,
Macromedia would like us to use Flex. But with all due respect MM hasn't
proven itself to really stick with anything for the long term. They try;
they're sincere; but here's a short list: XRes (why did Fireworks have to
replace it?); Fontographer (still used, but since it's not a growing market
you might as well forget it); Authorware/Director (I know they're not dead);
Central (and it's sub-radar "developer release"); Generator.
I'm not trying to pick out failures--they're not really failures. But Flex
will only live as long as it's growing. Actually, I take that back, it
will go a little bit longer than that because MM really does seem to believe
in Flex for the longer term. But they're pragmatic too (and now subject to
a takeover). I'm not as bullish on it (as Jesse is) only because I do a lot
of one-off or smaller projects. Just like how FCS now is primarily a
streaming video delivery server, Flex may change to match however people use
it. (Please note that I do understand the values of FCS but 95% of the
customers out there just want video.)
Finally, one other dig is how MM constantly shows us the grand future
opportunities in mobile. Sure, this will be huge for MM (Adobe) and huge
for licensing the Flash player. But, let's be real... the opportunities for
developers is relatively tiny. I really don't think I'm an ostridge here...
maybe I can't see beyond my nose... but really... how many people are doing
mobile content? I know of Phillip Torrone and that guy who now works at
MM... but I hear about a lot of projects and over the last many years of
hearing about mobile stuff I have seen like 0 projects come around. Am I
just hanging out with the wrong clients? My point about this is not "I
hate mobile" (though, I don't want loud cell phone talkers sitting next to
me on the plane)... but my point is just that MM would do better to push the
true opportunities. I resent being hit over the head about how great mobile
is going to be for me. (I'll be glad to eat my words when I'm deep in
mobile work.)
Thanks,
Phillip
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Samuel Wan 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| If I understand both of you correctly, you observe that application
development on the Flash platform is being encouraged to migrate to Flex,
and Flex is an abstraction of a UI framework on top of the SWF format. I
observe that the Flash architecture is showing its age, though its vision
continues to evolve very competitively.
By abstracting the semantics of a UI framework from the SWF format
(decoupling), Flex could potentially enable Macromedia to pull a quick
switch of the underlying Flash player technology without breaking backwards
compatibility with the semantics of Flex. Note that I point at Flex as the
origin or anchor for future backwards compatibility... for developers, not
designers.
The most successful API's rarely need to change their semantics because
they're sound. Only the underlying implementation needs to change. The
question is whether the new Adobe entity has the depth, experience, and
foresight to design an API for the future, or risk binding themselves to the
old Flash model.
-Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of JesterXL
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:31 AM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
Yes, you can create components, and auto-compile them to SWC with code hints
without rebooting FlexBuilder.
Yes, you need to purchase the server to have a working SWF; but viewing Flex
as a SWF compiler on the server is a gross misunderstanding of what Flex
truly is.
However, Macromedia realizes that many companies don't need a server, and
are willing to work with you; the Flex team in general is very open about
wanting to work with people. Some people can even deploy OEM if need be;
you only pay till you get paid type of deal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
Hi Jesse,
But can you create components in Flex??... and you still need to buy the
server in order to have a working swf right?
-B
JesterXL wrote:
>It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
>Developers to do; use Flex.
>
>Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
>delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a
>job
>with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
>
>I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's
>age;
>as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
>product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
>predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
>support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
>real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be
>left
>up to Flex.
>
>
>
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brian Lesser 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks Jesse,
So my takeaway from this is that Flex is the new and more expensive
Flash Professional? ..and I should start creating communication
components in Flex? Why does it feel so much like bait and switch?
Cheers,
-Brian
JesterXL wrote:
>Actually, the only real saving grace for me (if I cannot get my current
>employer to utilize Flex) beyond whatever the future of Central becomes, is
>devices. Coding in Flash 4 is, for me, a joke and a complete waste of my
>time.
>
>...however, I wouldn't mind coding in AS2 for a phone if the new version of
>Flast Lite does in fact come out later this year; I've already got the dough
>just waiting to be spent on whatever Flash Lite enabled phone nokia comes
>out with.
>
>Flex is positioned in the web sphere, so that leaves Central to ownzer on
>the desktop, and Flash Lite to ownzer on devices. All the Java/J2EE guyz
>care about is integrating a nice presenting tire replacement for their
>pathetic JSP; Flex does that nicely, and removes any need whatsoever for
>hiring a Flash developer; 1 or more. It's frustrating, too, because
>suddenly they assume all front-end work can be done without people trained
>in front-end development, and more akin to what Flex offers... hopefully
>it's just a wave.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "JesterXL" <jesterxl-RyEax5csP4NCVeB36W80OQ@public.gmane.org>
>To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 1:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
>
>It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
>Developers to do; use Flex.
>
>Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
>delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a job
>with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
>
>I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's age;
>as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
>product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
>predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
>support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst the
>real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be left
>up to Flex.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
>To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
>
>Hi Phillip,
>I think the trend you are describing will continue as both companies
>likely see the medium to large enterprise and government markets as the
>places to leverage their platforms. I'm not an expert in such things and
>have no inside information but it is fun to speculate:
>I would guess you will see a gradual build out of more full featured
>platforms for electronic document/digital media management,
>collaboration, and distribution followed by extending those platforms
>into larger vertical applications.
>I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to examine
>as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as a
>real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not an
>instant market success. It takes time and a lot of work/cash to
>establish a new computing platform and attract third-party developer
>interest. Even if FlashCom 1.0 had shipped with vastly improved
>documentation, more full-featured components, and more advanced tools
>for integration into the enterprise, I have no idea how much faster the
>take up would have been. (I guess it would have been faster but wouldn't
>guess by how much.) Small independent development shops are addicted to
>free or inexpensive tools. It is very hard for a company like Macromedia
>to sell expensive server products via small developers - if not
>impossible. If Macromedia had come out with greatly reduced licensing
>fees the take-up might have been a lot faster but no one knows what the
>actual revenue would have been. To really sell a new server into the
>current market you need something closer to a working application. To
>use the Flash/FlashCom platform to develop a corporate application
>Macromedia had to:
>- integrate with MS Office (PowerPoint)
>- extend the Flash plugin to work more closely with the MS desktop OS
>(file sharing and screen capture)
>- integrate with a back-end application/database to manage meeting rooms
>and content..(including integration with MS Outlook).
> From Peldi's FITC presentation you can see things like Flash paper and
>Captivate will offer other ways to get content into Breeze. And now I
>think I read that Contribute can hook into content stored in Breeze's
>content repository. Extending the idea further I would guess we'll see
>things like real-time document review and management in Breeze. Or, down
>the road, Breeze being integrated into some uber document/digital media
>management system... I wonder if you'll be able to present and edit a
>corporate report in Breeze/InDesign from your content management system,
>get official sign off, and then distribute it to the public.
>I've read in blogs that Adobe doesn't know anything about supporting
>developers. I'm not sure how good Macromedia is at that either.
>Supporting a developer community is very expensive. IBM spent $40
>million developing Eclipse before giving it away. I don't think
>Macromedia wants to do that sort of thing. Today both Adobe and
>Macromedia want to support integration of their platform with
>enterprise-level integrators. Look at the Breeze API as one example:
>
>http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/br...b_services.html
>
>and then at Adobe as another:
>
>http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>
>Today FlashCom is also a success for Macromedia because it has some
>unique features in the streaming space that some large service providers
>and media corporations can sell or need. Again I don't think the small
>developer market is a big factor.
>
>So it looks like FlashCom became a success when Macromedia could offer
>FlashCom based applications to industry. In other words, when they found
>a way to build and sell large and more expensive applications. Now lets
>consider a couple of less successful Macromedia ventures. Flash Remoting
>was a small server-side product that added something to the Flash
>platform. Instead of charging a nominal fee to enrich Flash as an
>over-all development platform, Macromedia tried to charge real money for
>it. It was reverse engineered and now will only see value for Macromedia
>as an enhancement to Coldfusion and Flex. I don't think Macromedia
>really wanted to make that kind of "donation." Coldfusion's server-side
>ActionScript is a complete failure. It only exists because someone at
>Macromedia wanted to give Flash developers a way to work in Coldfusion.
>In other words to sell Coldfusion via Flash developers. The first and
>only release of Coldfusion/ActionScript was half baked. You had to use
>strings to build SQL statements and there was no access to stored
>procedures, LDAP and other features CFML provides. I doubt
>Coldfusion/ActionScript sold a single copy of Coldfusion. Now it is just
>an extra piece of CFMX that has to be maintained in new releases. So
>Macromedia is probably losing money on it - and I'll bet they hate doing
>that. When I look at what happened with Remoting and
>Coldfusion/ActionScript I don't see much of a commitment to stay the
>course for Flash developers. A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
> From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe have been
>cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
>Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We may also
>see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe. But if we don't see
>better components and a we do see a continued drive to the Flex
>server... well I think that says something loud and clear to Flash
>developers. Personally, I think that will be a long term mistake if it
>goes that way but I can't prove it.
>
>So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
>small developers can't touch except via integration of larger vertical
>applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is for Adobe. If
>it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft will not
>sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large and vibrant
>developer community and the cash to support it...
>
>Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
>industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
>guess that providers of content management systems are more at risk than
>the small Flash developer over the long term.
>
>Yours truly,
>-Brian
>
>
>
>Phillip Kerman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| hank williams 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| I really hope thats not what they are thinking.
Aside from pricing, the flex model is, conceptually, a narrow little
niche. Even if it was 100% totally free.
The notion that the only way to create a particular type of file is to
have it be auto generated off a server is, for most applications, not
useful. At the end of the day, a swf file is a media object, like an
illustrator file, or a video file, or a photoshop file, or heck even a
C++ application.
Imagine if the only way you could deploy a C++ or Java app was to set
up a server that "auto generated" it. CRAZY.
Imagine an illustrator file that could not be mailed. The only way to
see it was to send a URL. CRAZY.
Imagine if the only way to access video files was to stream them from
the source. CRAZY.
The bottom line is that for client side code or media, injecting a
server into the production cycle as a requirement for things that are
not related to the client server model is transparently obvious as a
finanical metering tactic. Its a way to charge $15,000 for a compiler.
They just thought it would sound silly to charge $15,000 for the next
version of the flash IDE, so they put the cool functionality in a
server. Heck, people are used to paying $15,000 for a server.
The problem is that some things just dont belong in a server, and you
end up looking silly. MXML does not belong in a server. Do you think
XAML will require a server to deploy? Macromedia's only saving grace
in that regard is that XAML /Avalon will be big and bulky and PC only.
But if the flex strategy that jesse proposes continues as is, even
XAML, warts and all, will rapidly overtake Macromedia's overpriced
architecturally foolish strategy.
There is lots of great engineering going into flex. Too bad the server
based model makes no sense for most swf deployments.
Hank
On 4/23/05, JesterXL <jesterxl-RyEax5csP4NCVeB36W80OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> It's already been spoken loud and clear what Macromedia wants Flash
> Developers to do; use Flex.
>=20
> Whether you run the numbers and find you save $15k in developer hours by
> delivery products a month early based on the time you save, or you get a =
job
> with an enterprise company vs. the small company job you have currently.
>=20
> I don't think Adobe will abandon Flash, but it's certainly showing it's a=
ge;
> as I stated before, it's following the same route of Director, with a new
> product spawning off to fill a void incorrectly/partially done by its
> predecessor. Flash will follow the same route as Director; extended to
> support Flex (and other SWF 'esque needs like Breeze/Captivate) whilst th=
e
> real development & innovation in actually creating applications will be l=
eft
> up to Flex.
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
> To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>=20
> Hi Phillip,
> I think the trend you are describing will continue as both companies
> likely see the medium to large enterprise and government markets as the
> places to leverage their platforms. I'm not an expert in such things and
> have no inside information but it is fun to speculate:
> I would guess you will see a gradual build out of more full featured
> platforms for electronic document/digital media management,
> collaboration, and distribution followed by extending those platforms
> into larger vertical applications.
> I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to examine
> as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as a
> real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not an
> instant market success. It takes time and a lot of work/cash to
> establish a new computing platform and attract third-party developer
> interest. Even if FlashCom 1.0 had shipped with vastly improved
> documentation, more full-featured components, and more advanced tools
> for integration into the enterprise, I have no idea how much faster the
> take up would have been. (I guess it would have been faster but wouldn't
> guess by how much.) Small independent development shops are addicted to
> free or inexpensive tools. It is very hard for a company like Macromedia
> to sell expensive server products via small developers - if not
> impossible. If Macromedia had come out with greatly reduced licensing
> fees the take-up might have been a lot faster but no one knows what the
> actual revenue would have been. To really sell a new server into the
> current market you need something closer to a working application. To
> use the Flash/FlashCom platform to develop a corporate application
> Macromedia had to:
> - integrate with MS Office (PowerPoint)
> - extend the Flash plugin to work more closely with the MS desktop OS
> (file sharing and screen capture)
> - integrate with a back-end application/database to manage meeting rooms
> and content..(including integration with MS Outlook).
> From Peldi's FITC presentation you can see things like Flash paper and
> Captivate will offer other ways to get content into Breeze. And now I
> think I read that Contribute can hook into content stored in Breeze's
> content repository. Extending the idea further I would guess we'll see
> things like real-time document review and management in Breeze. Or, down
> the road, Breeze being integrated into some uber document/digital media
> management system... I wonder if you'll be able to present and edit a
> corporate report in Breeze/InDesign from your content management system,
> get official sign off, and then distribute it to the public.
> I've read in blogs that Adobe doesn't know anything about supporting
> developers. I'm not sure how good Macromedia is at that either.
> Supporting a developer community is very expensive. IBM spent $40
> million developing Eclipse before giving it away. I don't think
> Macromedia wants to do that sort of thing. Today both Adobe and
> Macromedia want to support integration of their platform with
> enterprise-level integrators. Look at the Breeze API as one example:
>=20
> http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/br...b_services.html
>=20
> and then at Adobe as another:
>=20
> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>=20
> Today FlashCom is also a success for Macromedia because it has some
> unique features in the streaming space that some large service providers
> and media corporations can sell or need. Again I don't think the small
> developer market is a big factor.
>=20
> So it looks like FlashCom became a success when Macromedia could offer
> FlashCom based applications to industry. In other words, when they found
> a way to build and sell large and more expensive applications. Now lets
> consider a couple of less successful Macromedia ventures. Flash Remoting
> was a small server-side product that added something to the Flash
> platform. Instead of charging a nominal fee to enrich Flash as an
> over-all development platform, Macromedia tried to charge real money for
> it. It was reverse engineered and now will only see value for Macromedia
> as an enhancement to Coldfusion and Flex. I don't think Macromedia
> really wanted to make that kind of "donation." Coldfusion's server-side
> ActionScript is a complete failure. It only exists because someone at
> Macromedia wanted to give Flash developers a way to work in Coldfusion.
> In other words to sell Coldfusion via Flash developers. The first and
> only release of Coldfusion/ActionScript was half baked. You had to use
> strings to build SQL statements and there was no access to stored
> procedures, LDAP and other features CFML provides. I doubt
> Coldfusion/ActionScript sold a single copy of Coldfusion. Now it is just
> an extra piece of CFMX that has to be maintained in new releases. So
> Macromedia is probably losing money on it - and I'll bet they hate doing
> that. When I look at what happened with Remoting and
> Coldfusion/ActionScript I don't see much of a commitment to stay the
> course for Flash developers. A turning point for me might be Flash 8.
> From things I've been reading I assume Macromedia and Adobe have been
> cooperating and planning for some time. We already know we'll see a
> Flash UI closer to the Adobe UI model in the next release. We may also
> see a little of how Flash will evolve under Adobe. But if we don't see
> better components and a we do see a continued drive to the Flex
> server... well I think that says something loud and clear to Flash
> developers. Personally, I think that will be a long term mistake if it
> goes that way but I can't prove it.
>=20
> So yes, I would not be surprised to see more and more features that
> small developers can't touch except via integration of larger vertical
> applications. I just don't know how serious a risk that is for Adobe. If
> it is they may not see it until it is way too late. Microsoft will not
> sit still while all this happens. Microsoft has a very large and vibrant
> developer community and the cash to support it...
>=20
> Finally, I'm glad I'm not in the Content Management application
> industry. I don't see how the new Adobe can resist going there. I'd
> guess that providers of content management systems are more at risk than
> the small Flash developer over the long term.
>=20
> Yours truly,
> -Brian
>=20
> Phillip Kerman wrote:
>=20
h[vbcol=seagreen]
e[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> =3D-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =3D-----------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>=20
> =3D-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =3D-----------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Randy Tinfow 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| > I think Macromedia's experience with Breeze is a good example to =
examine
> as a possible pattern for other products. Despite all its features as =
a
> real-time/streaming extension of the Flash platform, FlashCom was not =
an
> instant market success.<
Do you consider Breeze economically successful? I've never seen an =
implementation outside of Peldi's coding caf=E9. Are there any real =
statistics?
Randy Tinfow
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brian Lesser 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Hi Randy,
From the limited information I've seen I think so. I'd have to go back=20
to the quarterly reports though. The lack of Breeze Live visibility has=20
to do with the way it is used - not a lack of success. Its like Webex.=20
You are not aware of it until you are dragged into a Webex sales=20
meeting... Also look at what's coming in the next FCS release. I'll bet=20
those edge servers will make really big Breeze Live meetings possible=20
across a content network.
Yours truly,
-Brian
Randy Tinfow wrote:
e[vbcol=seagreen]
n[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Do you consider Breeze economically successful? I've never seen an impl=
ementation outside of Peldi's coding caf=E9. Are there any real statisti=
cs?
>
>Randy Tinfow
>
>
>=3D---------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=3D---------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
> =20
>
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Richard Leggett 2005-04-23, 5:45 pm |
| Hi Phillip,
Just on the mobile note, I'd like to agree that for now, yes it is still
VERY early days. We are talking hardware upgrade cycles because of the
licensing route MM took with the Flash Lite player rather than S/W cycles
which means it will of course be slower to take off. Then again, Nokia,
Sony Ericsson, Samsung and pretty much *all* of the other big manafacturers
are starting to bundle it in up and coming handsets.
Hopefully so that I don't take this too OT on my first post to this list, I
aim to show how convergence is in the Flash future by showing an FCS chat
app utilizing video on desktop clients and text on Flash Lite devices (via
proxy) at an upcoming MMUG. Hopefully this is a key strategy in MM/Adobes
future, embracing all of the Flash technologies, including developing in
Flex for mobile for things like content portals (similar to FlashCast).
There's quite a few projects out there, T-Mobile being the biggest,
deploying the Flash Lite player during beta as part of a Symbian installer,
so it is feasable, they were pretty much the only people with the balls and
the bucks to pull it off at such an early stage, but they have paved the way
for the rest of us, we just have to wait for penetration. And yeah there's
been posts regarding AS2 in Flash Lite which haven't been taken down (I
can't remember who), so it looks pretty good eh.
Writing once and running anywhere is starting to take on the ridiculous
quality of becoming a reality in more places than ever expected! (I love
the idea that you should be able to develop in C# and XAML and deploy for
..NET or SWF without ANY extra coding, that will be a turning point).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Kerman" <lists-o+I0KgJKNbax1f37qs3qIgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>
To: "'FlashComm Mailing List'" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Living in fear...
>
>
> That's interesting. I have no info that they've been planning this for a
> while--no doubt some of the management sorts have. But, a) I don't think
> the UI designers had ANY clue because if they did it would have leaked out
> and b)from the public screen views of 8ball I didn't notice the Adobe UI
> signature.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think this offering makes it very difficult for me or my clients to
build
> truly custom apps. If Breeze Live was needed to make FCS a hit then I'd
say | | |