Adobe Apollo, browser or application sobriety test.


Ok, so couple of the Adobe guys got all wound up over my previous post about “welcome to the browser market“, as they don’t want the notion that Apollo only exist as a browser out there (fear of being typecast as a one-trick pony, which is perfectly fine to want to change messaging around).

On one hand “it’s not a browser” slogan gets thrown out there (via raiding comments in other peoples sites etc via Adobe staff), but then when you watch Mike Chambers doing a “Channel 9 Scoble” style interview with Christian Cantrell’s, one of the first applications being spun up by Adobe is both Google Maps having vCard access  – and – Amazon.com being surfed within a browser like model.

Now, argue with all on semantics as much as you want, but when you see stuff like this in full view with Adobe staff as the ones running it.

It just sends mixed signals.

My take? I think positioning Adobe Apollo better if you don’t like the browser arguments flowing, as it’s primitive use can be forked easily enough. Apollo Trillian is an Application, Amazing.com + Apollo is a browser expansion pack.

I think the error in all of this is simple, when you bolt in a browser (WebKit) as being part of the Apollo runtime, its easy for people to associate it as that.

It’s still alpha however and beta may adjust this perspective further, so sorry JD “Apps are in part still browsers“.


Comments (3)

  1. nhodge says:

    I think that we are on the cusp of seeing disposable applications.

    Sort of like screensavers circa 1999 used as part of marketing campaigns.

    Instead, people will make ‘branded experiences’ wrapped around a tightly controlled browser.

    Maybe this is where Apollo will end up? skip_intros and disposable apps?

  2. Ken Wilson says:

    You know, I was disappointed when the old Mossyblog went silent but happy again that you reappeared so quickly. However, you’re constant Adobe bashing and now your "it’s a browser" line of reasoning is starting to sound like the worn-out Bush/Cheney "mission accomplished" and "last throes" arguments. The rest of the world knows there so much more involved but you seem stuck with your head in the sand playing the old MS FUD routine. If you want to be a RIA Evangelist for MS – and if MS actually has something to offer in that area – you really need to get on with talking about MS technologies on a deeper tech level. Give up on the constant Adobe bashing before you’re reputation turns to toast. So far you’re just making it look like MS has nothing of value to offer.

  3. scbarnes says:

    Ken:

    This isn’t an Adobe bashing exercise, it’s more of exploring the understanding on how staff within Adobe are saying "It’s not a browser" through-out the blogsphere and online articles (in numbers as well), yet on the flipside the first round of demos they themselves appear to start in this direction of creating browser-centric applications?

    Yeah, I am a Microsoft employee, and my role covers anything that touches the browser so while I gain an understanding that you would prefer I talk shop around WPF & WPF/e I also look after other web-centric technologies within Microsofts offerings.

    To put it in another light, Web Live also comes under my portfolio of coverage and given that Adobe Apollo Runtime is also purpose built for HTML/JavaScript developers then I do have a vested interest in Apollo going forward, so that I can expand on this further when I engage developers.

    The assumption I guess out there is that in order to be a Microsoft Evangelist in the "Adobe world" one must pit WPF/e against FLASH or its considered Adobe bashing?  Yet, there are many pieces to the Microsoft web platform puzzle, and Adobe whilst they believe we are at odds with one another (in some cases yes) there is still a desire and need to also colloborate and interop with each other.

    Here’s the final thing that I need to address in this space, whilst yes I could sit here all day talking up WPF and its greatness (which I plan to once i’ve got something more to talk about other then what others cover – I don’t believe in echoing posts for the sake of blog points?) I also need use Adobe products, much more then I did when I wasn’t Microsoft Employee X and posting same style posts I do now on MossyBlog.com

    Nothing’s really changed in my style & approach overall, just the fact that I’ve now got a Microsoft logo on my t-shirt and have inside knowledge of their products.

    Compare my writing to MossyBlog and you’ll find no real difference, I was critical of FLEX in it’s initial early days, and that was to ensure folks heard the different perspectives on the matter and I was celebrated for giving a "raw" view of Macromedia at the time.

    Lastly, this wasn’t an Adobe bashing this was simply a question "What will the beta hold in terms of messaging going forward".

    Macromedia FLEX had similiar patterns where the messaging was disparate and guys like myself in the field kept getting screwd on Macromedia at the time coming to terms with what they wanted developers to build vs what developers actually built.

    It’s history repeating itself from my perspective and this time round, i wouldn’t mind putting some blog posts out there that hit on some raw nerves as who knows, they may pay attention now that I’ve got a Microsoft logo under my name ?

    Microsoft isn’t just WPF and WPF/e folks, there are other parts :) (clearly I need to post more on this, so Ken, i take your crit on board and apologise if it offends you and will followup with some more Microsoft centric posts to illustrate the depth and breadth of what I cover daily when not in blog-mode)

    Scott.