Following a blog-refer-thread off of Sam Ruby's 'Control You' entry:
Whether or not you agree with Mark Pilgrim on Flex/Flash, he writes a hell of a piece.
Adobe introduced Apollo, their latest attempt to recreate the web in their own image. Apollo is based on Adobe’s own markup language, Adobe’s own runtime, Adobe’s own graphics and animation framework, Adobe’s own video and audio codecs, and Adobe’s own developer tools. You can do many things with it, but “you may not sublicense or distribute the Software. … You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software. … You may not install or use the Software on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system.” It requires at least Windows XP SP 2 or Mac OS X 10.4.
The only part I disagree with is "the web". Actually Apollo is more about the desktop. Adobe needs to pursue openness more aggressively than it is. Announcing something 7 months before you do it with only a mailing list is...curious. Implying that you're doing that so that open source doesn't derail all stability and destroy your product is...an interesting message. Apollo isn't that relevant actually, I have several technical concerns with it and am dubious about its chance of success. In fact you probably don't need Apollo at all to achieve a good 90% of what Apollo wants to achieve and with only today's technologies. Java Webstart + izPack + Tomcat + a Flex API and you could do all the local storage you want and arguably most of the other stuff too. But as Mark points out, you'd be leaving vendor wonderland. That being said, I'm not opposed to Adobe having an even bigger role in defining the web provided they democratize and open up their platform a bit.
This guy raises a few good points but thinks that Mozilla will save us:
(We also don’t make you sign licensing agreements to get the format specifications, or prevent you from competing with us. We don’t tell you where you can and can’t install the software. We don’t tell you what you can and can’t tell people about your experiences, or that you can’t give it to other people with whom you might want to collaborate.)
...
Mozilla has always valued and supported web developers, and in turn those who support developers with tools and other assets, and we’ll invest more in this area over the coming year. But we’ll do it in a way that makes sense for the whole web, and brings to bear the human-manipulable power of web technology: a great set of primitives that people combine in very different ways, giving developers a great opportunity to choose tools and toolkits and patterns and technology that suit how they want to work and what they want to build.
The web can eat toolchain bait like this for breakfast. And, if Mozilla has anything to say about it, it will do just that. You won’t have to give up the web to work offline any more, or programmable 2D graphics, etc. Soon you’ll have the power of 3D and great desktop/application integration as well, via projects like canvas3d and registration of content handlers, and you’ll have it in a way that’s built on open specifications and a tool ecosystem that isn’t a monoculture. Why wouldn’t you choose the web, given its record and power and openness?
While I agree Mozilla is certainly more open and credible than Adobe as far as openness, standards support and lock-in avoidance... How does any of this stuff work in IE? Secondly, if everyone uses Mozilla then won't it fall into the same rut as IE did? Thirdly, Mozilla's credibility in the "Rich" of RIA...XUL is Mozilla's IE... They had a great thing...dropped the ball and let it whither. Meanwhile they haven't shown a great deal of motivation to work with or around Microsoft to make all of this stuff work anywhere BUT in Firefox. While buni.org traffic is > 50% Gecko based browsers (~48% Firefox) though nearly 75% Windows (I use Linux) -- I would bet that this is not a representative sample of the web at large.
Ultimately DHTML (aka AJAX) isn't enough. Sun's "silly season" scripting language over applets (aka JavaFX) is more of the same (and very disappointing). Microsoft's Silverlight smells of .NET and I'm sure will please their regulars, but will whither in adoption on the web as a whole. The richer web is coming and it is a race to openness as to who "wins". Guys...you can help define it, and make a lot of money selling the tools/services around it...but not own it. Any attempt to do so will create a "wedge issue" and limit your message and market opportunity to the party faithful...or your regulars if you prefer.
Technorati Tags:
adobe
RIA
flex
silverlight
JavaFX
sam ruby
mark pilgrim
mike shaver