FlexLive.net

TechCrunch has just put up a new post on Apollo. Compare to the comments from the previous post, I think the people are less skepstical about the technology this time around. However, I noticed there were two reaccuring questions in the comments: How is Apollo better than traditional desktop applications and what is the security model?

So how is Apollo better than traditional desktop applications? Platform neutrality. Apollo is rooted in the Flash runtime, and Flash currently supports Linux, Mac, Windows, as well as most legacy Windows. The Apollo runtime is also extremely light weight, which means it would have a much more rapid market penetration rate compare to the mammoth Java runtime. Since Apollo supports both HTML and Flash content, it would help organizations protect and leverage their existing investments in AJAX and Flex. To sum up, Apollo is better than traditional desktop platforms because it’s platform neutral, light weight, and backward compatible with existing rich internet applications.

The security issue is something I’m interested in as well. Unfortunatly, since Apollo is still in its early stages, the security model is not solidified yet. But be sure to check the Apollo FAQ regularly for updates. The Apollo team is also very open to community feedback. You can send your feature requests to wish-apollo@adobe.com.

Update: digg away, folks!

If you are reading this blog, you are probably a fan of RIA just like myself, but have you ever put much thoughts into what makes a RIA “rich”? The word “rich” is a broad term, but the key idea is that it describes the user experience, from the users’ perspective. In this context, I think the word “rich” can be roughly divided into “rich UI” and “rich communications”.

Rich UI is a highly sought-after attribute for the customer facing web applications. Take the mapping application for example, the market was dominated by incumbents like MapQuest and Yahoo for years. When Google Maps came out, the simple yet powerful UI made a huge difference. That explains why online stores like Ericsson was so quick to adopt Flex.

Personally, I’m more intereted in bringing RIA into the enterprise. However, that’s where rich UI falls short. It’s a considerable risk for any in-house development shops to bring in a new technology like Flex. A pretty GUI is simply not enough to convince most IT managers. IMO, “rich communication” is where RIA realizes its value in the enterprise. Rich communication comes in many forms, such as rich media streaming offered by Flash Media Server, or realtime data synchronization powered by the Flex Data Services. The Flash/Flex platform would actually help IT shops reduce project risks due to its native support for rich communication and the OS neutrality.

Enterprise RIA is a really interesting topic for me and you can expect to see more posts on it in the future. If you are working on projects in this area, feel free to contact me. It’s always a pleasure to chat with someone working on the front line.

Looking back to 2006, it’s hard to miss the drama between Microsoft and Google. From the business analyst point of view, the two make unlikely competitors. Considering the fact that Google’s core business is online marketing, and Microsoft’s core strength is platform building, the level of friction between the two border lines stupidity.

If I was Ray Ozzie, I would be more concerned with Adobe. Why? Because Microsoft’s corporate color is blue, and Adobe is red. Red and blue make natural enemies… But seriously, Adobe has made some fundamental changes in the past few years. The company is no longer limited to building creative tools. With PDF and Flash, Adobe is becoming a formidable opponent when it comes to building platforms. If you look at the technology lineups from both companies, the similarities are striking. Here is what I mean,

• XAML (Microsoft) vs. MXML (Adobe)
• WPF (Microsoft) vs. Apollo (Adobe)
• WPF/E (Microsoft) vs. Flash Player (Adobe)
• Visual Studio (Microsoft) vs. Flex Builder (Adobe)
• Expression Studio (Microsoft) vs. Flash (Adobe)
• WCF (Microsoft) vs. Flex Data Services (Adobe)
• XPS (Microsoft) vs. PDF/Mars (Adobe)
• Infopath (Microsoft) vs. Livecycle Designer (Adobe)
• Biztalk (Microsoft) vs. Livecycle Workflow (Adobe)

The list is getting long, but I hope you can see my point: 2007 is going to be an interesting year.

Oddcast has a virtual character demo that’s so realistic, it’s border lining creepy. The character’s super realistic text-to-speech engine combined with different language settings is guaranteed to keep you amused for a while. And of course, the demo front end is built using Flash. Follow the link below to see it for yourself,

Oddcast TTS Demo