And we're not talking cleaning products here folks. Will Microsoft's new Sparkle and Avalon products be the knock out punch for Macromedia?
Following Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles last week we've had a flood of new information surrounding a couple of potential Flash killing products which will be arriving with the next release of Microsoft's new OS in 2006 - Currently code named Longhorn.
The first of these, code named Avalon is a brand-new client platform for building smart, connected, media-rich applications in Longhorn. According to Microsoft "Avalon will introduce the ability to create applications with a new style of user interface and greater resolution than Windows currently supports" - sound familiar?
Avalon will be pitched squarely to application developers, because it's really a collection of application programming interfaces, or APIs, which developers write to tap into the graphics capabilities of Longhorn.
Word on the street is that Microsoft wants to simplify the creation of applications that use media including audio, video and animation. Windows applications will mimic "Web style navigation" to guide people through specific tasks or find information. According to Microsoft by tying Avalon to Microsoft's Indigo back-end Web services software, developers can more easily connect data from a corporate database to GUI elements.
The good news for Macromedia fans is that to take advantage of Avalon's new graphics and higher resolution functionality, companies and consumers will have to upgrade their existing hardware. One tester who had gained access to an early version of Longhorn said systems will require at least 3D video card with a minimum of 64 megabytes of memory.
The second potential (and more direct) contender to Flash - Code-named "Sparkle" is a new graphics and animation toolset currently under development which will be integrated with Microsoft's .NET runtime environment.
An insider who's familiar with the project, saw examples of the "Sparkle" toolset integrated with Microsoft's C#, said early prototypes have given rise to talk of its potential as a "Flashkiller" or even a "Director-killer,".
A lot of the goals Microsoft is aiming at with "Sparkle" are the same as those Flash is looking to accomplish, one source said. But the tool goes beyond Flash in delivering a .NET application that has access to all the APIs in Longhorn, and effectively takes animation beyond the browser to enable, say, three videos running at the same time as other graphics and animation.
With the latest release of Flash being a shot directly across the bow of Microsoft, specifically targeting application developers (including VB and .NET programmers), it would seem only logical that Microsoft wouldn't take a threat like this lying down.
Replies: 48 comments
1) I already dropped Flash for IE/Win DHTML. It should provide me with a smooth transition to Avalon and XAML when it comes out. The problem is that joe/jane - mom/dad - corporate employee end user is happier than horse **** using MS Client Stuff. I am happy too -- now I don't have to spend 90 hrs a week/weekends learning all of this new client technology. Long Live Microsoft Standards!
posted by Christian (), 11/05/2003 08:58 PM CST
2) Man, Longhorn sounds like it's going to be the busiest, ugliest, non-standardiest Windows ever.
Can you imagine if your average MSDN-toting application developers actually used all these things? Yuck. I'm getting a migraine just thinking about it.
posted by emberton (), 11/05/2003 09:14 PM CST
3) Hi hate windows, I hate IE, I hate DHTML, I hate Bill Gates... I'd rather grow patatoes then work with ms products
posted by Bobby Lapointe (), 11/05/2003 10:47 PM CST
4) Quick, jump ship!! The sky is falling - Microsoft is bringing something out in 2005 to compete with Flash, so what.
We really don't know what Royale will do - who's to say that some of these touted features aren't already there. And consider this:
2002 - FMX
2003 - FMX 2004
2004 - Royale + Flash ?
2005 - ????
Let's not get too carried away just yet, all this Microsoft stuff seems to be vapourware right now.
posted by Andrew Muller (), 11/05/2003 10:52 PM CST
5) I see a conspiracy theory here.
Intel supports macromedia on occasionally connected computing. Microsoft ditches Intel's XBox chips for IBM. Macromedia friendly with apple than ever, using contribute for .mac and featuring macr's products on its main page. Adobe's fallout with Apple, support for some of its products removed for apple.
Microsoft joining hands with Adobe to develop apps for its keynote. Microsoft releasing info on Avlon 3 years before deployment to create fud.
Do all these things tie up? Macr, apple, Intel, etc on one side and msft, adobe etc on anotherside?
posted by Gen (), 11/06/2003 12:12 AM CST
6) I'll believe it all when i see it WITHOUT bugs.
Say, is .NET actually fully finished yet? or are they still dreaming about things to put into it?
posted by Scott Barnes (), 11/06/2003 01:01 AM CST
7) I really dislike Microsoft, and distrust them, but they really are trying to do their best here. Although it has taken years of being hammered for a shoddy, insecure OS, something has lit a fire under them, and they look like they might produce something pretty good. The problem is that so many people are jumping ship - to Linux, Java, Macromedia, Apple, etc.
posted by Jan (), 11/06/2003 01:16 AM CST
8) There is no way the litte puny 400kb Flash Player can complete with all the stuff Microsoft is coming out with (in Longhorn). I mean seriously , XAML , is going to be silly. It's like XUL,which I believe is the best RIA framework out there right now, on steroids. It compiles and has complete hooks to the .NET framework.
The post above me says so many people are jumping ship to other platforms ... keep dreaming ... show us some stats. The first poster is right -- average joe end user loves their Microsoft stuff. Businesses love the standardization. Why do you think nobody (non-technical) could give two shits about all of this Anti-trust stuff.
Face it .. 95% of the people are happy as hell inside the Matrix.
Developers still snicker when you talk about using Flash for anything serious. Flash has gone as far as its going to go .. online ads and other presentation stuff .. unless Sparkle takes that niche over.
posted by Zarski (), 11/06/2003 02:06 AM CST
9) Oh yeah, and for all of you that haven't noticed yet, FrontPage is far superior to DreamWeaver! lol...
And by the way, there are millions of people that will not be upgrading to Longhorn, even after it comes out somewhere in the distant future. I can only imagine a more intrusive OS than XP... Its probably gonna mean buying a new computer, and new software... oh yeah, and I'm sure even more hardware will be incompatible, so that will have to go also.
posted by MixMatch (), 11/06/2003 02:26 AM CST
10) Well look here
ColdFusion is based on java and that beats the **** out of .NET because of open architecture. the fact of the matter is that closed architecture corporations like Microsoft will NEVER win over the programming world because we all like open architecture. When I make code I like people to see it. Microsoft has only one chance in hell of winning over flash in it’s own field and that’s to go open architecture. But they never will because bill gates, nazi motherfucker that he is, won’t ever allow people to be able to look at the core of his OS and products. I am a loyal macromedia lover and I will never switch to a Microsoft competitor. Microsoft is good at one thing, word processing. And as far as I’m concerned the only quality product they have EVER put out is word. **** gates and his Holy Roman Empire.
LONG LIVE OPEN SOURCE
posted by Arron (), 11/06/2003 03:36 AM CST
11) Zarski, "little puny" 400kb player v. 23.1mb .Net Framework v. who knows how may gb Longhorn - those MS people have really got it figured out haven't they ;) all that efficiency in all that code.
I mean honestly who's really using the .Net framework anyway? Who's really going to be willing to spend the money to upgrade their hardware so that they can see the pretty new buttons that the Sparkle vaporware is going to deliver?
Macromedia managed to increase the performance of Flash player 7 for Windows by 70% over player 6 by adding only a few kb, no one needed to upgrade/install a new OS to make that happen - MS should take note and stop producing bloatware.
Don't compare what Microsoft is claiming that they'll produce in two years with the current version of Flash. Wait the two years and compare the two versions of the products on the day.
posted by Andrew Muller (), 11/06/2003 04:17 AM CST
12) Does Longhorn work on a mac ?? The beauty of Flash is that it allows us developers to build cross platform applications. All this XMaL CuNtMML LongHoRN crap were hearing from m$ is up to the normal diroahetic standards.
Christian and Zarski, you both realy need to get out more (there are real people out there in this world - outside of MSN chatfrooms and LAN parties).
Zarski, especialy, come on pal, developers dont *snicker* at flash any more. THe fact theres this Blog is testiment to that. Your going to lead a very sad lonely little life my friend if you think Flash has gone as far as it can. You 'aint seen nothing yet.
posted by pete (), 11/06/2003 05:01 AM CST
13) Also, wasnt liquidmotion suposed to knock flash of its perch???
Liquid motion .. what the hell is (or was) that I hear you cry.
posted by pete (), 11/06/2003 05:08 AM CST
14) It's sad to see the comments here focus on MS-bashing and hateful polarizing - wasn't it the idea that the more competitors we have, the better a product gets? Are there no .Net/Flash developers to chip in here? To me, this Sparkle thing will make my world a richer place, a tool for specific problems that Flash does not tackle so well right now. We develop apps with .Net and Flash, and I can really see benefits here. It will widen the spectrum for RIA's; Sparkle won't be a competitor for Flash, just as Director is not a competitor for Flash, but another tool for a different job. Why would you go for the one tool that you know, to do your job the hard way? You'd expect a professional to bring the right tools for the job, not just his favorite hammer when the problem is a loose screw...
posted by Blago (), 11/06/2003 05:39 AM CST
15) This all assumes a few things:
1. People will upgrade to Longhorn.
2. Developers will embrace yet ANOTHER set of APIs tossed their way.
I doubt this is a Flash killer. First, it will only work on Longhorn which won't see light of day until 2005-2006 or later. How many will immediately adopt it as their new OS? How many businesses will go running to it? It will take a lot of time to have everyone on Longhorn and it might not even happen. This is not a cross platform solution, so what happens to the Apple and Linux people how can they see Sparkle and Avalon at work?
Sorry but its a tough sell to me. Flash is embedded and "trusted" by the average Joe. Microsoft's reputation right now is at an all time low.
It might also be noticed that .NET hasn't been picked up all that fast by developers. There are plenty of shops still using VB 6 and other tools. Heck Microsoft themselves don't use .NET. I don't see ASP.NET running on msdn.microsoft.com or microsoft.com. I don't see the new version of Office being done in .NET. So what gives? .NET not good enough for Microsoft? Thus I think Avalon and Sparkle will be the same.
posted by Mark Haliday (), 11/06/2003 08:23 AM CST
16) Well .. I am more of a developer than a designer and I can tell you that I am worried. We need to see Linux and Mac more inroads over the next couple or Microsoft is going to run away with this thing especially on the application side,which is what I care about. A lot of people are just bashing other posts and Microsoft here but this threat is real. Even my shop being all Mac has Virtual PC running on each box so we can use certain windows applications. A linux shop would still use Wine. Even Macromedia makes their applications with a special affinity towards the windows platform. They do make for Mac too but we are pissed(in my place) over bugs and over the crappy performance of Dreamweaver and Flash for Mac. Like I said, I am worried.
posted by C J Deming (), 11/06/2003 09:02 AM CST
17) Surprise, surprise that Microsoft promises something new, far in the future, and utterly non-cross-compatible. While I think this will be a great way to get rid of ugly windows apps in favor of more bloated shinier apps (assuming they hire designers to help & don't let the average colorblind coder type handle all the animation & graphic design). However, as an online "killer to Flash", I don't buy it. Windows XP came out what, 2 yrs ago? and how many people are still using 95 or 98? I'm guessing folks will barely have upgraded their hardware to something that ships with XP by the time Longhorn ever emerges from the vapor. Thus an additional 2-3 yrs after that before it represents a sizeable share of web community.
posted by RealityTheorist (), 11/06/2003 11:30 AM CST
18) Microsoft has a lot to worry about its hacked OS/browser. It is losing $$$ and government contracts (ie., china) all over the place. We are using cfmx and a j2ee app server, because of Mr. Bill's issues. Macromedia doesn't need to worry about these products until 2006, and that is a eternity.
posted by Patrick Whittingham (), 11/06/2003 11:38 AM CST
19) It might be worth mentioning that all these organizations are in the business of making money...at the end of the day that is there primary concern and the concern of shareholders. Standards, developers, interoperability, etc are all secondary to the bottom line. We should keep this in mind any time we feel like making alliances with private sector entities. If we need to make alliances, then perhaps they should be to other developers and designers.
posted by bndWgnJumper (), 11/06/2003 12:39 PM CST
20) Macromedia has woken the sleeping M$ dragon with the lastest 2 releases of Flash. Usually my $$ would be on the dragon...but this will be an interesting battle and for the first time M$ may have a worthy adversary in the form of MM.
For all the .NET compliance and the wondrous desktop integration promised in avalon and sparkle, don't forget the most important aspect of Flash development remains its network friendliness. This will remain true for as long as bandwidth is a limiting resource. M$ have never yet had a strong vector product.
Retire we must to Helms Deep my friends!! The Orcs march at sunset.
posted by zappy deelite (), 11/06/2003 01:21 PM CST
21) Just my 2 cents...
We have not made the switch to .NET but we use VB6 extensively. And, we use Flash extensively. BUT NOT FOR THE SAME THINGS!
Anyone who thinks Flash is ready for prime-time as an application development tool has never used a tool like VB or Delphi. I can put together a decent prototype of almost any business app you can name in a very short period of time using VB. Flash turns that simple task into a nightmare!
On the other hand, I can do some very cool animation and scripting with Flash that would be impossible or extremely hard in VB.
Now, what I really like is integrating Flash into my VB apps for the best of both worlds. That is where I see the power.
Flash will not unseat any app dev tool anytime in the near future nor will any other MS tool likely replace Flash any time soon.
posted by John (), 11/06/2003 01:48 PM CST
22) My two cents has a point...
The potential that both VB and Flash hold are wonderful. Unfortunately instead of competing why not merge for the better of both worlds. Microsoft specialized in text based applications and Macromedia vector based animation. Imagine the amazing applications that could be developed with both Microsoft and Macromedia. If only there was a way to bridge that gap. I am a designer and programmer and have millions of ideas that incoporate both mediums, but the battle between the head honcho's well isn't worth the headache. First the cross platform issues, then operating system compatibility not to mention syntax associated with both competitors. Quite honestly it's not worth the headache Sorry MS I'm with Mac to the end.
posted by Liz (), 11/06/2003 04:03 PM CST
23) Reading more about Royale today. The product definitely has legs. Seems alot like XAML. It is not as powerful but will have big head start. I think the XUL/XAML/Royale way of doing RIA is really going to grow the space. Web developers are used to programming by defining the UI with markup, therefore, if Royale can come out and the support the big 3 (Java,ASP.net,PHP) quick enough they can win alot of developers. Winning developers is what it is all about, which is why product activation was a stupid , stupid move -- but anyway.
posted by Christian (), 11/06/2003 04:38 PM CST
24) I would not dismiss "Sparkle" lightly.
MM's strategy for Flash as RIA development env. has serious obstacles to be overcome.
Notably the anti-climatic Flash MX 2004 IDE, that was buggy enuff to send MM stock plummeting.
Given Microsoft's resources and background, development resources for Sparkle would likely be in the Visual Studio league, arguably one of the better env's around. and leveraging the power of C#, VB or J#
The other major hurdle would be performance issues with the Flash Player. Due to the various limitations of Flash Player, performance of even simple components suffer dramatically. A visit to MM's Exchange, and attempting to use the flash RIA to scroll through various entries reveals a seriously choked app. Attempting to use some of the Central Applications (which again relies on the Flash Player engine) again painfully reminds one of the performance issue.
Microsoft would also need to deal with these issues, but given the fact that they would be launching this in a couple of years from now they would be able to leverage the power of increased processing power on end-user machines....consequently appearing to be performing better right from launch day one.
Another hurdle to be overcome would be the restrictions imposed on developers using the Flash env, notably lack of access to the file-system and so on.
Developing for "Sparkle" would most likely empower the developer with more powerful features at the OS level and provide access to the graphics subsystem for Longhorn .
The one killer Flash feature that "Sparkle" may not be willing to provide is the interoperabilty across the diff environments typically found on end-user machines. But MM needs to seriously pick up the pace on enhancing both the Flash Auth Tool to be a rock-solid reliable and fast IDE, and dramatically improve the performance and capabilities of the Flash Player, otherwise they're likely to see a shift in developers towards "Sparkle" if it lives up to expectations.
posted by Anon (), 11/06/2003 06:59 PM CST
25) I got two words for everyone in this forum:
Microsoft LiquidMotion
posted by Luis Aragon (), 11/06/2003 07:52 PM CST
26) Anon: "the anti-climatic Flash MX 2004 IDE, that was buggy enuff to send MM stock plummeting."
I just love the gutless wonders who spread blatent lies without being brave enough to publish under their own name.
Check your facts and figures first, less than predicted sales of the Studio MX 2004 product would have been the biggest contributor of the stock price going down.
If a buggy product was the main contributor to the price of stock I'd imagine Microsoft shares would be somewhere in the -$1000 range, wouldn't you?
posted by Andrew Muller (), 11/06/2003 08:41 PM CST
27) A Muller:
Fact : - first dot release in history of Flash Auth tool...
Fact : - listen to presentation at paying attention to reasons for slow uptake of Studio MX 2004
http://www.wallstreetwebcasting.com/webcast/ftn/macr/
Lastly.... not publishing my name does not detract from what I am talking about....I dont think so.
posted by Anon (), 11/06/2003 09:19 PM CST
28) @anon
Good link and you are right Burgess does mention the bugs but I got to think product activation and pricing were/are the big culprits.
posted by Christian (), 11/07/2003 01:30 AM CST
29) And don't forget that whenever Sparkle/XAML come out, they will be ONLY for Longhorn. People using Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, Linux, Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP will NOT be able to see your Sparkle content!
Macromedia tries to cover multiple platforms, benefiting users, content developers, and themselves. :-)
posted by runtime (), 11/07/2003 01:07 PM CST
30) Product activation + pricing + lack of support for prev. years' products = disaffected customers.
disaffected customers = fewer upgrade sales and fewer recommendations by said customers to get new customers on board.
Let's face it: most of the most popular technologies out there are built not solely by Marketing (it could even be argued that Marketing often has the opposite effect when not based in something vaguely resembling reality), but by word-of-mouth from developer to developer. No matter how you got your copy of Flash, the fact of the matter is that you most likely picked it up because a "good friend" suggested you look into it, or was championing it in some way that piqued your interest.
The fewer people there are that are happy with the current product, the fewer people they will bring in by word-of-mouth. I'm waiting to see if/when the update for Flash MX04 hits, and whether it really addresses the issues at hand before I make any further judgement, but John is definitely right: a buggy IDE will _not_ compete against Visual Studio (or hell, even against stuff like SharpDevelop or Eclipse!) for the minds and hearts of new developers. MM should definitely not be resting on its laurels at this point... they're not out of the woods, yet.
posted by Jason M. Batchelor / mori57 (), 11/07/2003 01:07 PM CST
31) "MM should definitely not be resting on its laurels at this point... they're not out of the woods, yet."
I agree totally! I think they have tried to BE Microsoft way too early in their history. Given where they are right now I believe they jumped on the product activation bandwagon way too soon. That nuisance coupled with the other things Jason noted AND the fact that Flash MX 2004 does not really raise the bar much over Flash MX (IMHO) could result in a real flattening or decline in Flash growth.
If only MM had added Visual Studio-like app dev capabilities and full access to the OS, etc., now that would be so big I'd be running to upgrade. As it is, 2004 only brought a few things I'm curious about and I VERY comfortable staying with MX for now.
posted by John (), 11/08/2003 03:52 AM CST
32) You know... Christian (yeah, 30+ comments later, I'm still replying to the first one), I'm not gonna lie to you: I strongly dislike Microsoft. Their misunderstanding of open standards really pisses me off. But they do know how to build nice and usable software. I'm a Windows 2000 user and I'm very happy with it.
Being an indepedent consultant, I'm forced to work with a number of technologies to make a living. I studied a little of .NET recently and I can say it's a really attractive platform to work with. But what you said about Microsoft Client technology (referring to IE) is way off the mark. People use IE because there's no incentive to look for alternative options. But if one learns about a browser like Mozilla or Opera, then one will never open IE again. I installed Mozilla Firebird on my father's PC recently, and after trying it for a few minutes, he even asked me to uninstall IE from his Windows box. IE is a completely outdated browser, both for users and developers. What you call "MS/WIN DHTML" is a small slice of the functionality you can get from Mozilla and recent versions of Safari. Not to mention that IE's support for CSS and the DOM is far away from being decently W3C-compliant.
posted by Jonas Galvez (), 11/08/2003 07:21 AM CST
33) @Jonas
Mozilla is great and it is also my main browser. In fact I am using Mozilla right now as I write this. However, I still use IE to check my oddpost mail and use Napster 2. When our outfit decided to go from Flash to IE/Win DHTML for a particular project I was firmly against it. But their reasoning was sound. 95% of users have IE 5.0 and a Windows OS. That stat is almost as good as the Flash runtime. Now we make web applications not web sites so we are not so concerned about reaching other platforms.
I was shocked on how much can be done using proprietary IE/Win DHTML. Most important is that it can be embedded with the server side code making it fast to learn and fast to develop with. Never underestimate those two things in our business.
I have become like the average end-user. I like MS Standards. I like that we can get our work done faster because we are just focussed on one platform. I like that I can have a life again and not be endlessly slaving at my computer learning 4 different client side technologies. Jonas, I used to be angry like you are -- now that I have given into the Dark side I am happy again -- you can be too!
posted by Christian (), 11/08/2003 10:39 AM CST
34) Heh, no, thanks, I'm happy to be a part of the Rebel Alliance. Well, I'm rather impressed by your point of view. A person who knows and uses Mozilla, or any other good open-source software, presumably understands the benefits of the open-source development process. You're making use of a tool which is based upon the open standards philosophy. That's one of Mozilla's biggest strengths, mainly because it makes development easier. Mozilla provides you with a set of tools more powerful and easy to use than you could possibly imagine. Have you ever heard about XUL? And CSS3? Well, I'd call it modern web development. I'd call it faster web development (no, I can assure that "endlessly slaving" at your computer wouldn't be necessary). If your company builds applications to specific groups of users, I see no problem in choosing a single platform. But seriously, today you would be a much happier developer if your company had chosen Mozilla as their standard platform. Unfortunatelly, right now I don't have the time to provide you with the links to back up what I'm saying, but I suggest that you use a few minutes of your day to make some googling. You'll be surprised :-)
Personally, I'd never go back to developing HTML-based applications. Flash is such a superior environment with some many capabilities that makes it the most productive tool that I have ever worked with. I really can't imagine the possible scenarios where a HTML-based application architecture would be better than Flash.
posted by Jonas Galvez (), 11/08/2003 05:44 PM CST
35) @Jonas
I am very aware of XUL. I think it is by far the best RIA tech out there right now (Actually, IE/Win DHTML is kind of similiar to XUL, of course not as powerful). However, we cannot force 2000 of our customers to download Mozilla. I'am sure their response would be "Mo - what?". The standards you talk about are just not a reality today. Remember I am talking about applications here not web sites. I believe a "web site" should be readable/viewable in all of the big browsers. Applications are different though: their complex nature forces the developers to have to make technology decisions. We would have to double our staff if we were going to have our application support Moz and IE --- not a economic reality --- and for what? So we can reach that nerd 2%? Microsoft has given the end-user world what it has been asking for -- Standards. The end-user world is the only world that matters -- not our tech-user world.
But, I have to go now --- I can finally go out again on Saturday nights. Thank you, Microsoft.
P.S. If Netscape/Moz would have released their browser in say the year 1999 or even 2000, I believe the browser landscape would be much different today. Today Netscape/Moz could have been atleast at 25% to even 40-50%. That ****up was not the doing of Microsoft.
posted by Christian (), 11/08/2003 06:30 PM CST
36) Working in an intranet brings both benefits and curses: on the good side, you generally know what platforms you need to be able to support, and the technological constraints under which you must operate. On the bad side, intranets tend to bog down progress to newer, potentially-better, technologies. For example, a good portion of our user community _still_ uses Netscape 4.79, despite the availability of IE 6, and lack of support for Netscape 4.79 by corp tech support.
We have to build web applications to support both the IE users and the Netscape users; we've been successful to the degree that our apps are usable in both.
Unfortunately, as Christian points out, it's the end-user that counts in our business. I like the idea of open standards. I'm a Mac user, running Apache 2, J2EE, PHP, and MySQL on my 3-yr-old Pismo and OS X, so open standards have done nothing but assist me on the homefront. However, my bread and butter is provided by my work with M$ technologies. Someday, I hope to make money with open standards, but my reality remains: I can't ask my users to go and download Mozilla, not only because they don't know what it is, but also because I'd get trounced by Corp IT!
I really would love to be able to do more development with Flash, but I have not found it to be a reliable or easy platform to program in and for. With HTML, at least I know how to easily display data in a grid (even if that's only with antiquated techniques such as the TABLE tag), and I can provide proto's that move to full production faster than I can do the same thing with Flash.
Now, maybe that's because I'm using the wrong techniques, or because the majority of our users in Ford still have the Flash 5 plugin (and aren't forced to update to the in-Ford-available Flash 6 player). In any event, when I've only 40 hours in a week, and I could spend either 20 hours developing _one_ piece of an app in Flash, or three to five pieces of the app in HTML/DHTML, which one do you think my boss is going to tell me to do?
posted by Jason M. Batchelor / mori57 (), 11/10/2003 10:43 AM CST
37) @Arron
Java isn't "open" in the true sense of the word...
posted by dave (), 11/10/2003 07:40 PM CST
38) I tell you what: there are some people making money with open standards. And I'm lucky to be one of them. All that it takes is patience to educate your clients and users. In the end, they are happier and more satisfied than ever.
posted by Jonas Galvez (), 11/10/2003 11:06 PM CST
39) I Hate being GAY... My ass is always sore!
posted by Error404 (), 11/11/2003 02:15 AM CST
40) Ohhh big boy!
posted by ProBiSoNe (), 11/11/2003 02:17 AM CST
41) Hey there strong throwin arm, You like popcicles?
posted by LM- (), 11/11/2003 02:18 AM CST
42) ummm microsoft and this ..nay ...somethings cookin...but not like FLASH
posted by dx (), 11/11/2003 05:19 AM CST
43) I don't understand MS, they can't handle seeing other companies come up with original (compared to MS, relatively bug free) products. It took MS 20 years to come up with an OS that works like the UNIX machines 3 decades ago. Stole ideas from Mac, Netscape, Macromedia and alikes.
MS, stop MS-ing everytime there is a new GOOD product not made by you, take a deep breath and relax!
posted by RaminoAcid (), 11/12/2003 10:20 AM CST
44) Jonas,
I agree give it up !
I are happy too.
A couple of weeks ago I started an article that was to be a bash Bill and Longhorn page well it ended up me putting Bill up close to JC as someone who has changed the world. That 90-95% of the world market is a pretty good indicator wouldn't you say (response) ?
Come on over to "Our Side" it's painless . . . ( insert evil laugh here)
I hadn't realized that I had become one of them up to that point. wow, so many years of resistance out the . . .he he Window.
Just Don
posted by Just Don (), 11/14/2003 12:09 AM CST
45) Empty threats
MS had my attention when they first unveiled Liquid Motion. Now, MS to kill off and replace Macromedia? Right, I'll believe it when I see it. You just keep on diggin' that hole deeper and deeper, Mr. Gates
posted by Frost (), 11/14/2003 01:20 PM CST
46) .. yes guys ..
if u remember adobe's livemotion ... all says that is "the flashkiller" ... people opened an entire site with that name ... and now what we see ?
what rulez ?
... yes i know .. it was the swf format ..but the principle is the same.
and SVG ... all says that is the swf format killer :)
so i can continue ... but i want to finish to say that MM rulez,
if MM lower prices on their beautiful products, all will support them... :)) (more) ;-)
posted by DN (), 11/18/2003 01:16 PM CST
47) I am glad that every critic of Micro$oft's products are perfect developers - whether it be multimedia or code. I have news for everyone: bugs happen. Software inconsistencies and imperfections are representative of the imperfect engineers that produce it. Take the mote out of your eyes. I don't think anyone will deny that M$ engineering has improved leaps and bounds from where it used to be... I get this kind of talk on a daily basis, and it all seems to be coming from the same types of people: Macromedia, Linux and Mac users... No one is going anywhere so stop being paranoid. You cutesy Flash devs will still have your little tool to use and you can still persist in your delusion of being an Object Oriented programmer with ActionScript... Linux people: go configure your hardware and in 36 hours come start developing applications... Mac users: ummm, go hug each other in your support groups. In short, stop bitching and get developing.
posted by Zelph (), 11/19/2003 02:04 PM CST
48) Do you ever notice that the best web developments tools ever are just php + flash?
Do you realy need somethig else? So... why to worry?
Bill... sorry.... yo will never see your dream became true... ja,ja,ja...
posted by Pablo Impallari (), 11/22/2003 12:18 AM CST
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.actionscript.com/archives/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
