I get this a lot, and most think I’m just annoying Adobe by using the word “Interactive” instead of “Internet”. I think I’ve already covered this discussion in fragments but thought I’d do it one last time to cement my reasons once and for all.
Internet for me isn’t the right word, it’s semantically incorrect and out of touch with today’s actual “RIA” (Rich Interactive Applications) solutions. Typically, hardware vendors are looking at Rich Interactive Applications with new found respect, and monitoring both Microsoft and Adobe movements in this space.
When you couple hardware vendors along side most internal facing solutions, the word Internet starts to have a confusing message/meaning, as well…. Internet isn’t really being used?
I also support the “Interactive” word based off my own personal experiences. Most of the RIA solutions I worked on prior to Microsoft never saw the light of day beyond the corporate firewall, they were essentially unified views over complex back end systems (insert SOA buzz wording here). In saying this, Internet never actually played a role – it did use the approach of what the Internet has, in terms of “web centric” methodologies but again, no actual Internet – maybe “Intranet” more so.
Point overall is that we at Microsoft have a compelling story around Software + Services, and if you take the time to read about it, the word Internet in RIA doesn’t always apply. Interactive for me was the correct wording, as it doesn’t confuse per say, in that If I were to approach a customer and state “I am building you a Rich Interactive Application” it takes on a whole new context to “I am building you a Rich Internet Application”.
The world has changed since 2002 when Jeremy Alliare wrote a whitepaper around “Rich Internet Applications” and with change, comes upgrade and evolution. I predict Interactive will become more familiar as time goes by than Internet.
Why live in the past, when the future is much brighter.