Comments on: Would You Still Use AIR if Most of the Features Were Available in the Browser? http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/ Ryan Stewart on the Flash Platform Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:03:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Tony MacDonell http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4401 Tony MacDonell Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:50:19 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4401 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! 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!

]]> By: Ryan Stewart http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4400 Ryan Stewart Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:10:32 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4400 @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. @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.

]]> By: theklue http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4399 theklue Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:03:14 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4399 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. 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.

]]> By: DannyT http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4398 DannyT Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:07:29 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4398 "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. “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.

]]> By: Michael http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4397 Michael Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:56:08 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4397 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... 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…

]]> By: Rahsun McAfee http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4396 Rahsun McAfee Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:10:22 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4396 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. 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.

]]> By: Rachel http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2007/11/would-you-still-use-air-if-most-of-the-features-were-available-in-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-4395 Rachel Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:30:41 +0000 http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=1154#comment-4395 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. 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.

]]>