Why Apollo is So Important

Posted on by

There is an interesting comment thread as a result of a post I made on ZDNet regarding the difference (or lack thereof) between Rich Internet Applications and Rich Enterprise Applications. I see no difference, but the comment thread gets into the theory of what role the browser plays with regards to RIAs.

When Apollo first came out, I was extremely skeptical, because I thought that all along, Adobe/Macromedia’s “play” was for the web. The web is great; it’s ubiquitous, it’s established, and it has solid underlying technologies. Then Apollo came along and took the web out of the Flash Player. The way I see it, at the ripe old age of 24, everything is going to be connected. The idea of a desktop application seemed short sighted to me, and I figured the shelf life of Apollo would be limited at best. I’ve slowly changed course, and today, with the help of David O’Malley, everything coalesced in my mind like the Colorado river meeting the Green River, which is to say, Grandly (if you get that reference, I owe you beers for life).

Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve become a big Apollo convert. The ability to solve the online/offline problem is going to be great (but again, when we’re connected everywhere, who cares?). The ability to tie in closely with the file system and provide a security sandbox for RIAs are both invaluable. But it’s something else, and I’ve talked about it a lot, but never put it together. Apollo presents RIAs as they should be.

The browser is a broken, but comfortable delivery medium for RIAs. People are familiar with the browser because that is how they have always interacted with the web. Ajax brought on the idea of web applications, and they work within a browser (after a number of hacks). Even the Flash Player runs within a browser, because that is how people access the web. But this is backwards. The kinds of things happening on the web now shouldn’t require a browser. Sure, we will still read blogs and search in a browser; but for the kinds of web apps we are seeing, using a browser is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole – it won’t work well.

Apollo (and technologies like WPF) take those applications and extract them from the browser. The power of the web is still there, but people are no longer going to have to interact with these applications inside a browser. There are going to be some difficult growing pains – people are going to resist at first. But change is good, and Apollo is an evolution of software development. We have seen the power of the web, but Apollo can make better use of that power by breaking the chains of the browser.

Related posts:

  1. Ajax, Not Flash, Will Drive Apollo Adoption
  2. Apollo – People Taking Notice?
  3. I Have Seen Apollo and it is Awesome
  4. See Apollo in June?
  5. I Don’t Get Apollo
  • Brandon Wittwer

    I couldn’t agree more. The browser is becoming antiquated as powerful new technologies such as flex are introduced into the business-sphere. When a developer has the opportunity to develop such widely platform independant and fully capable internet enabled applications, that developer should be able to deliver his product in any way he wants to. The “big business”, high dollar days of Thick clients and Server – Client software packages are going to the wayside. And Apollo and the like, i think, should usher in a new era in business application developer.

    When I was assigned my title at my current position. I asked them to drop the word “WEB” from my Applcations Developer title. As I see no reason to even make the distinction any more.

  • http://www.tomasbecklin.com Tomas

    Not to mention that with Vista, Microsoft will bring the web to the desktop with widgets etc. Adobe needs to get a presence outside the browser if they want to compete with MS longterm.

    Apollo looks very promising to me. Abode has solved the “silent” installation with the Flash player, and from what I’ve heard Appolo will work the same. Obviously not a 700k download though. :)

  • http://yukonbiz.com/ Geof Harries

    Much of the success of Apollo, WPF and other non-browser based apps will be as a result of long-term efforts in plain language communications and marketing.

    For instance, the iTunes Music Store is based on Webkit but I bet most people wouldn’t consider it an dynamic application like you’re referring to. To them it’s just another piece of desktop software that they install. It’s comfortable and predictable.

    Whereas with Apollo and RIAs, people in the know have seen them grow up in the realm of being web-only, and so that label is carried across. RIAs will always be web-apps in their eyes, no matter how they’re cloaked.

    In order to break the stereotypical chains of a browser-based application, I believe those marketing RIA and the technology behind them need to focus their communications on their products being “just another desktop app with some web-features” rather than a completely new platform.

    IT departments are especially scared of new platforms and new technologies- even more-so one that’s as “scary” as RIAs based on Flash.

  • Pingback: FlexLive.net » What can Apollo learn from Java

  • http://tanstaafl.wordpress.com Xiaolei Shi

    [...]How is Apollo related to Macromedia Central?

    While there are a number of members of the Apollo team who previously worked on Macromedia Central, Apollo is not directly related to Macromedia Central.

    We have taken a number of the lessons learned from Central (what worked, what didn’t work) into consideration when designing the Apollo feature set.

    The Apollo code base is completely separate from the Macromedia Central code-base. [...]

    Central had no market presense and a big ugly C [a lasting artifact of corporate America shouting 'We down you']. Needless to say Central was a total failure. I believe only four individuals [me included] participated in ‘Central Developer Chat’. I’m assuming Apollo has a similar kind of deployment model (ITunes-like).

    I’d sure like to know exactly what worked and what didn’t, because in my mind the two are awfully similar. This time around there’s better video and a [much] faster player. Does faster connotate better? I certainly don’t think so. I mean replace a dog’s brain with a supercomputer and it’s just going to sniff your crotch a billion times faster.

  • mike chambers

    >I’d sure like to know exactly what worked and what didn’t, because in my mind the two are awfully similar.

    Central What worked:

    Well, the Central install, and application install from the browser work very well. It was seamless, and made it east to quickly install applications (and Central if necessary).

    What didnt work (highlights)

    1. app had to run in a big central shell. i.e. it in a different shell than other desktop applicaitons.
    2. app creators did not have complete control over branding (see #1)
    3. Flash player performance was not up to the task at the time (and thus application performance was poor).
    4. aside from some limited file I/0, there was actually very little desktop integration.
    5. there really wasnt a solid flash based application framework to use.
    6. development process was very difficult

    All of these downsides are address with Apollo (or Apollo with Flash Player 9, Flex, and Flex Builder).

    mike chambers

    mesh@adobe.com

  • Cub

  • Pingback: Browse or Not to Browse « Breakpoint Inside Recursive Mind