Ahhh, So THAT’S Why Scott Barnes Likes Interactive over Internet
For some reason nothing gets under my skin more than this whole rich interactive application versus rich internet application fight (and this bugged me before I joined Adobe). I just think it’s kind of dumb and petty. RIA stands for rich internet application. Everyone calls it that, everyone knows what it means (well as much as anyone can define RIAs) and that’s that. Names/Acronyms that become adopted aren’t always the most logical but tradition and history have a way of prevailing. Scott has decided that it’s now rich interactive application (though last year he was still using rich internet application). I wondered why Scott was pressing so hard because even other Microsoft staffers don’t push the interactive with the enthusiasm he does. Then I saw this and everything was explained.
Posted in Rich Internet Applications
October 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
This reminds me of when DVD used to stand for Digital Versatile Disc, when it was first presented (and this dates me) at CES 1996 by Toshiba. Sony had their way, as they did not want it to be a PC medium yet, and called it Digital Video Disc, and the name stuck.
Despite RIA’s seemingly long-term use thus far, maybe Microsoft wants to be the Sony of the web and rename things as they see fit. The fact that they (or their staff) think they can start doing this could be a harsh sign of where they think they ‘already’ are in the rich INTERNET application space.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I call them Rich Ingenious Applications. Weird.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Ryan. Interesting to see you have finally landed yourself a job with Adobe. Of all the Adobe shills out there you were the without doubt the saddest and (I’ll give your this) hardest working at promoting Adobe and the acronym ‘RIA’. Now your part of the fold the real brainwashing can begin. The fact that Adobe have invented this phrase and then instructed every one of their ‘bloggers’ to drop it into any discussion dawned on me pretty early in my trawl of the internet for information on Flex.
Your not a programmer. That much is clear from this blog. What are you? If you can’t use the technology you are marketing (and lets face it that’s what this blog is all about) then you are basically a nobody. A marketing shill for Adobe who has drunk too much of the Kool Aid.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Ric,
Ryan knows Flex really well and has been doing technical Flex consulting for a while. Ryan is a developer and actually a good one. Just because he blogs about the business side of RIA doesn’t mean he doesn’t know his stuff technically.
Cheers,
Ted
October 13th, 2007 at 4:18 am
kids … can’t we just get along…
although I do agree, that the term battle is basically hijacking… there has to be some way to explain this new world of ria, which doesn’t have to be web/net based. An air/wpf app does not need to be a web/net app… but doesn’t it look , feel, and smell like a ria? So yah in concept I kind of agree, but… a new term is probably a better approach then hijacking an acronym.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:52 am
On top of everything else Adobe has Kool Aid? What an awesome company!
Keep up the good work Ryan.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Other than to note that Ryan’s long history as both a talented developer and insightful industry commentator (both before working for Adobe and after) speaks for itself, my advice to you all is — to quote professor Henry Jones — “Indiana… let it go.”
:Kendall
October 13th, 2007 at 5:46 am
… just because you don’t blog about coding, doesn’t mean you don’t code …
October 13th, 2007 at 6:22 am
I’m not sure which of the two is best suited for the RIA acronym.
I think “Internet” doesn’t quite cover the load when you look at initiatives like AIR, “Interactive” is a bit of a pleonasm — applications that are interactive, imagine that
If I was to coin a new phrase, I’d call them “Rich Internet-enabled Applications”. Whichever you use I don’t think there’s a huge difference in what it represents, RIA is RIA is RIA.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Going from what Peter says, instead of Internet-enabled, I propose Internet-aware.
Rich Internet-Aware Application. Or, RIAA.
Now, once we figure out a way to extort users/customers, we’ll be set! I know, maybe MS can lead the charge with some patent-trolling.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Two acronyms passing in the street
By chance two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can
-Pink Floyd, Echoes.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am
LMBO Ryan.
I wasn’t aware he was holding the #1 spot. 
Ric, there aren’t too many things I hate more than an anonymous commenter who tries to flame someone. Link to your own site and stop hiding. As others have pointed out, get your facts straight before trying to flame someone.
As for RIA, yep…RIA is RIA. @Peter, I agree. Internet doesn’t always cover it but…oh well…I guess someone can make a new name for things like AIR/WPF.
Rock on RIA!
October 13th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Heh, I figured this post would just be one people would laugh at on a Saturday morning and move on. Oh the interwebs
Maybe it’s because I’m youngish, but I’ve always thought internet/web permeated pretty much everything even when they’re disconnected. AIR and WPF to me are “Desktop RIAs” which implies the offline. Again, RIA being just an acronym and not anything that’s particularly meaningful – just tradition.
I’m leaving it alone from now on, I just thought it was funny that Scott shows up first on rich interactive application.
Ric, I’ve been developing Flex apps since the 1.5 days. Am I a great coder? No way! But I can hold my own. Frankly there are a ton of other better “code” bloggers both inside and outside Adobe. I chose to focus on the business/theoretical niche. It’s less important than the code (I agree) but still important and underrepresented.
Have a good weekend guys and thanks for the feedback!
October 13th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I can live with Desktop RIA.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
So, DRIA is another good acronym, too
October 13th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Hah, and it looks like I’m guilty here.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Moreover, don’t miss the dria.org by Deb Richardson, who works on Firefox.
Synchronicity, I love it
October 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Scott Barnes won’t stop…Ryan makes funny…new term MSRIA…
lol. That sums up this whole post.
Quick Background Scott Barnes is a former Flash/Flex’er who now has a job with Microsoft Evangelist. Ryan Stewart is a former full time developer who now has a job as an Adobe……
October 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I commented on Scott’s blog which hasn’t been approved (“He speaks the truth!”) so I will post it here:
“Scott, rich and interactive are pretty much redundant. Application implies interactivity! The internet is where it’s at. Face it. No one distributes multimedia on CDROMs or any hard media any more. Internet/intranet … it does not matter. It’s about non-desktop apps. It’s about distribution of applications without installs or diskettes or other such nonsense in a way that is platform agnostic. It is rich because it has sound, animation and/or video. It is delivered over TCP/IP. And it does something (requiring *interactivity*) so it is an application. So Rich Internet Application is in fact broader in scope. Jeremy got it right!”
So, ok. I didn’t figure AIR into the equation. So maybe DRIA is apt.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I’m with Randy on this one. DRIA. Then I can claim that DryerFox is built with DRIA-inside! (totally lame joke, I know)
I’m fine with the original definition of RIA, and it seems kinda late to be renaming it.
Of course, we could do a CUT vs. TUC thing and compromise with an acronym (UTC – Universal Coordinated Time) that means nothing to either party. So RAI it is then!
October 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
[BEGIN Sarcasim] *rolls eyes*… Google rankings? is that the best defense? heh… You got me Ryan..damn it, how is it you always outsmart me in these things [END Sarcasim]
Read my response to all of this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2007/10/14/rich-interactive-application-the-plot-thickens-adobe-s-not-happy.aspx
October 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I read the response and actually that post pissed me off, Scott, so I’m not even going to comment.
I was kidding about the google rank, though I can see how that might not have been clear. Sarcasm on the internet is always a dicey thing.
But the rest of your post legitimately pissed me off which is a tough thing to do. So congrats dude.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Yeah dude, I thought he saw the humor in the post too but after reading his post it was clear he didn’t. I commented but, as stated in the comment, I’m done commenting on his blog about RIA. It is redundant.
I even blogged about the humor here: http://www.johncblandii.com/2007/10/scott-barnes-wont-stopryan-mak.html.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Ryan,
Sorry you feel that way. Apologise if you got offended but, you have to understand when you feel the need to attempt to make joke of my posture on something I am serious about, I’m going to call you out on it especially when it appears you are belittling it in front of the wider community.
With power comes great responsibility.
-
Scott Barnes
RIA Evangelist
Microsoft.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Aww Scott, don’t be so sensitive. Read the comments and you’ll see numerous comments before yours that shows he posted this in jest. I’ve read your posts taking jabs at other Adobe’ians and “Adobe kool-aid drinkers” (hehe).
Relax a bit.
BTW,
“Scott Barnes
RIA Evangelist
Microsoft.”
Is that MSRIA (RiA; lowercase i), DRIA, or RIA? hehe. lol.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Ryan,
I’m a 3rd party .NET/Silverlight programmer, but your blog is near the top of my list as an interesting read during the week. Obviously you have a point of view, but I’ve always seen you as an ecosystem-wide resource, rather than an Adobe-partisan.
Actually, Adobe is in some ways Silverlight’s best friend (and vice versa). Who stimulated MS to create Silverlight at all? The best way for 3rd party Silverlight developers to get a feature added to Silverlight is to say: “But Flash/Flex does it!”
Keep up the good work
.
Alan Cobb
http://www.alancobb.com
October 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hi Ryan,
My experience is something like what Alan described. Your writing has been wonderfully non-partisan and informative. And, while I didn’t find anything worthwhile when I read the Barnes post you linked to, (though I guess his trying to apply the concept of semantic correctness to marketing acronyms was kind of unintentionally funny) I do appreciate what Alan called your “ecosystem-wide” writing. I look forward to more of it.
Thanks,
-Brian
October 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Haha…that’s a good way to put it Brian.
“(though I guess his trying to apply the concept of semantic correctness to marketing acronyms was kind of unintentionally funny)”
October 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Aren’t all applications with a UI interactive?
Rich Internet Application makes a lot of sense when you compare a flex app with a traditional web based application.
Rich Interactive Application is totally meaningless..
October 16th, 2007 at 6:11 am
RIA == Really Idiotic Argument
October 16th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Here’s the thing folks, another reason I use “Interactive” is it creates discussion. Adobe and Microsoft need to educate the masses on what RIA is end to end, in order for all to appreciate the in between technology discussion.
Ryan & I agreed that not enough people talked about RIA, and in the past 72hrs it’s interesting to see what peoples perception of RIA truly is.
Right or Wrong, it needs further discussion.
Scott Barnes
RIA Evangelist
Microsoft.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Too bad ‘engaging’ doesn’t start with an i cause that would be a good one: Rich Ingaging Application.
I know, let’s vote on it. Loser leaves town.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Scott Barnes said, “Right or Wrong, it needs further discussion.”
If it needs further discussion, then why are comments disabled on both of your two most recent posts?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
In all fairness, he could have them turned off after N days or comments. Then again, it could’ve been due to trackback (was deleted).
October 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
BTW, this and this is what wikipedia has to say on the matter. Compared to an article that doesn’t yet exist (as of posting this comment). Enough said.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Scott’s iMac post immediately preceding his RIA posts still allows comments. Since his comments are moderated anyway, I don’t see a point of disabling other than to end the conversation.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ahh…then nothing more for me to say there.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Interesting that Ryan once considered interactive as well. Fortunately, he’s since removed his head from the sand. Scott should come around at some point as well. Give him time.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:15 am
RIA vs. RIA – Semantic Showdown…
Rich I Applications have generated a lot of interest as Microsoft & Adobe have focused attention……
October 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I dunno about Ryan but I’m find things all mind numbingly painful, the level of immaturity alone is just weighing it all down further.
I guess we will see how it all plays out in the end, let’s agree to disagree. I disabled the comments simply because nothing new was being added and same “Microsoft isn’t playing fair” childish ignorant crap was being played out. Don’t like it, then blog about it – just not on my blog
I have to say though, The RIA vs RIA – Semantic Showdown had me laughing and was probably the -ONLY- comment here actualy worth reading.
-
Scott Barnes
RIA Evangelist
Microsoft.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Umm…I wouldn’t say the comments here are any less mature than your response to my post (in response to you asking me to respond on my blog and “take a position”).
That wasn’t highly mature…was it? lmbo
As far as nothing new being commented, isn’t it a discussion you wanted? Regardless of what the comments are saying don’t you want to discuss it with the community? If you keep posting the same thing…don’t you think you’ll get a very similar response? Just my take.
Funny post, Kevin.
(good points at the end though).
October 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am
why not just look at it sideways?
Rich _Interface_ Applications
(where ugly HTML are *poor* Interface Applications)
at least it’d stop you two from squabbling and give a bit more meaning to RIA
October 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Moon Freddie.
I visited your web site.
And my grandpa is a train finatic.