Would You Still Use AIR if Most of the Features Were Available in the Browser?

Posted on by

Danny has a post over on his blog about AIR that I thought was good and worth responding to. He was a very early adopter of AIR but since that time he hasn’t really seen any applications that jump out at him. In fact, he wonders why some of AIRs features wouldn’t be better off incorporated into the browser. He does a lot of his work right in the browser so it makes sense to add things like offline functionality, file system access, etc, right into the browser (security concerns aside). I don’t totally disagree with him.

As cool as AIR is, I still think the browser will be the central point of contact for most web applications. We’ve already seen how AIR is actually pushing the browser vendors to innovate (Firefox 3′s offline support) so I have little doubt that the browser will move more in the direction of AIR. But even with some of AIR’s features, the applications in the browser won’t be desktop applications, and that’s where I see the major benefit of AIR.

To me, AIR represents a true hybrid approach to application development. It uses web technologies and development trends but allows developers to create real desktop applications. That actually may not be valuable for everyone. I hate internet radio in my browser, but Danny doesn’t, and so doesn’t see the need for something like Finetune Desktop. The key question is what do your users want. Do they want an application that lives on their hard drive, installs like any other application and behaves like any other desktop application should (offline, with the file system, notifications, custom chrome, etc) or do they want their application in the browser? There is no correct answer but with the Adobe platform making the choice available to your user is easy. You can build a Flex app and deploy it in the browser (even if/when the browsers get a lot of extra functionality) and/or you can give them the desktop experience with your Flex app running in AIR.

AIR won’t appeal to everyone but that’s fine. It’s a key part of the platform that helps bridge the web and the desktop and provides more choices for developers. Hopefully it’s also moving the browser forward as well.

[tags]Adobe AIR, Desktop, Web applications[/tags]

Related posts:

  1. XBAP – Windows Presentation Foundation in your Browser
  2. Stop Thinking of Flex As a Browser Technology. Seriously. Stop It.
  3. CNet on Adobe as a “Microsoft Killer”
  4. Feeling Out Apollo
  5. Tara Hunt Starts to Get it – Browsers Are Dead
  • Rachel

    I think the most successful AIR apps will be those that complement their browser counterparts, and not replace them. An example application would be the Flickr Uploadr – it only exists to help you upload images from your desktop to Flickr, but it makes it a lot easier than it could be from the browser. Same type of idea for occasional connectivity – having an offline version to complement the online version.

  • Rahsun McAfee

    I’m with Rachel on this one. I like having a Twitter page, but I really like the Twitterific desktop app that keeps me up to date in real time instead of me going to a page to see what has happened.

    AIR seems to act as a real practical way to compliment most existing web applications or services. Finetunes is a great AIR app. And where AIR seems to really shine is when you want to create a better experience for the user through a desktop uploader, or maybe manage your online photo album from your desktop, etc.

  • http://fupeg.blogspot.com Michael

    One thing to keep in mind, browsers will have a hard time adding AIR features. To add a feature to a browser, you need Mozilla and Microsoft to agree on it. Then you need all of their users to upgrade their browsers to the new version that has said feature. Then, and only then, will popular websites be able to use the new feature.

    AIR on the other hand gives a simpler route. If a user wants the extra functionality provided by the desktop version of the website, then they download the app. Nobody is involved in this equation besides the site and the end users. The site is saddled with the responsibility of developing and maintaining two versions of their application. They also have to figure out how to monetize both versions…

  • http://danny-t.co.uk DannyT

    “I hate internet radio in my browser” – aw c’mon, what’s different about running finetune as an installed app Vs running it in it’s own browser window (or even popup as I’ve just noticed it allows) :P .

    “AIR represents a true hybrid approach to application development. It uses web technologies and development trends but allows developers to create real desktop applications” – actually yes, I do agree. Specifically when we throw the cross-platform card in. That is a point that I’d not given much thought to of late and for specifically creating desktop applications (regardless of an online equivilent) I agree that is very cool and a very real, sustainable use case. However, I do think AIR will need to evolve a little more to become a serious software application development platform with things such as devices IO.

    Rachel also makes a very good point about AIR apps complimenting not replacing. I’d even add “and not duplicating” to that too. Having a different tool to *support* your overall service is another great use-case for AIR and the flickr uploadr is a perfect example.

    But for RIAs I still think having some of these features in browser will be the best approach.

  • http://www.theklue.com theklue

    Lee Brimelow points out the other day (@ Barcelona Bus Tour stop) one thing that is obvious but sometimes passes by. As online applications evolve, they’re getting bigger (and much more richer). Downloading 1,2Mb web-app everyday can be very annoying. Having exactly the same app moved to the desktop can make sense in such cases.

    But I also agree with Rachel statement; I think AIR should be a browser complement, at least in early stages of evangelization.

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    @theklue Lee’s point is a great one. As the size of our applications increase the desktop is a good delivery model. I don’t wholly buy that because of the ever-increasing bandwidth, but right now it’s good.

    I think Rachel sums it up really well. That’s actually what I tell a lot of customers. AIR isn’t about replacing your websites, it’s about augmenting them.

  • http://blog.teknision.com Tony MacDonell

    I think we are very early on with AIR in terms of it’s proliferation. I wrote this awhile back:

    http://blog.teknision.com/?p=27

    Danny might be right that building desktop apps may not really be that compelling to some, but AIR looks a little different, when you look at it as a delivery model as opposed to a runtime for deploying “Desktop Apps” to.

    I use the terms:

    Destinational and Sanctuary, as opposed to web app and desktop app. I like this terminology, because it focuses on the fact that “I have installed this app, and I am giving it special privedges”, as opposed to “This app runs on the desktop instead of the browser”

    A key thing, I think, is seeing an AIR runtime on a mobile device. That is where it could hit it’s real sweet spot. While Flash Lite 3 is great, it may not be the best application runtime to deploy to. You have to distribute your content as raw SWF files as opposed to a packaged application.

    However, could you imagine a mobile device that used AIR as it’s native application runtime! That would be very compelling indeed!