thanks :-)
>I've been traveling recently, so I wasn't able to address these
>Flex-related posts as they came in. In the interest of efficiency,
>rather than responding to each post, I've aggregated the main points
>here:
>
>> I predict that Macromedia is going to sell off ColdFusion within the
>> next 2 years. Their product portfolio is too diversified and their
>> customer segments have very little in common - Flash, ColdFusion,
>> Director, Fireworks, Breeze, and now Flex - very different developer
>> communities.
>
>We absolutely have no plans to "sell off" ColdFusion. I don't know to
>say it any more plainly than that. Macromedia is very dedicated to
>ColdFusion as I think we will demonstrate with Blackstone. One of the
>primary focuses of CFMX was obviously the port to the J2EE platform
>which demanded significant resources. These are resources that we have
>been able to dedicate to innovation with Blackstone. I think you will
>like what we have planned.
>
>> FORGET flex! Go Laszlo!
>
>If you are considering Flex, it only makes sense that you will want to
>consider Laszlo, as well. Make sure you thoroughly understand the
>capabilities and limitations of each product, and make sure you fully
>understand each product's pricing. Contact Laszlo Systems for
>information on their enterprise pricing (it's not posted on their
>site), and make an educated decision. By no means do we expect Flex
>customers to be ignorant of Laszlo.
>
>> Maybe just another go nowhere Spectra product chasing tumble weeds...
>
>I've seen this statement in a few different places, and all I can say
>is that Macromedia is extremely dedicated to Flex and to RIAs in
>general. Although we know that traditional HTML-based web applications
>aren't going anywhere for a very very long time, we also believe that
>RIAs present huge opportunities for our customers, and Flex is key
>technology for supporting those customers. I'd also like to add that
>discontinuing products that are not performing where we need them to is
>not a shameful thing. I think it's amazing how Macromedia experiments
>with so many different technologies, and is willing to take chances.
>Macromedia is constantly investigating, playing with and investing in
>new technologies, many of which never see the light of day, but that's
>what it takes to be a technology leader. That said, however, we feel
>very very good about Flex and the opportunities it presents.
>
>> Flex...
>> 1) Is an alternative way to create swf files
>
>Generating SWF files is only one thing Flex does. It is certainly the
>functionality that gets most of the attention, but it does a lot more.
>See the Flex Features page for more details:
>
>http://www.macromedia.com/software/flex/productinfo/features/
>
>> 2) Offers nothing new to the Flash Client (I.E. with enough time; you
>> could build anything created in Flex through other means )
>
>It's true that Flex does not extend the capabilities of the Flash
>Player. The fact that Flex applications run inside the existing Flash
>7 player is a significant portion of its appeal, in fact. It is also
>true that you could build Flex-like applications using just Flash, and
>if that's efficient for you, than it makes sense just to stick with the
>Flash authoring tool. Take a look at a sophisticated Flex application,
>however, and ask yourself how long it would realistically take you to
>build and maintain it with Flash versus with Flex.
>
>> I'm willing to bet you could do it in-house for less.
>
>If you can, then you should. But again, get to know the technology and
>what it's capable of. Working for Macromedia, I have obviously been
>exposed to Flex throughout its development cycle, but I can honestly
>say that I was absolutely amazed with the finished product and what it
>is capable of doing. I'm not too bad with Flash, but I couldn't
>imagine building an extensive Flex-like application from scratch at
>this point. Its capabilities clearly set a new standard for RIAs.
>That said, if Flex can't save you enough time and/or resources, or
>present enough opportunity, than it's simply not right for you.
>
>> ...while Flex is no doubt cool, it would be a tough sell convince a
>> client to pony up $12K when UI development in either Flash or HTML
>> would be far less than that. Obviously, the pricing is enterprise
>> level.
>
>Again, you have to do the math. Figure out:
>
>1. If you think your business can benefit from a Flex application.
>2. If so, how long (in man hours) would it take you build it without
>using Flex.
>3. How much return do you think you can get from rewriting your
>application with Flex.
>4. Do the math and compare the end result to $12,000.
>
>Just like any other business decision, it require careful analysis.
>
>> what are the advantages of using Flex, when price is obviously not one
>> of them.
>
>I would encourage you to visit the Flex product page, view the sample
>applications, and install and experiment with the Flex trial. I think
>the functionality that Flex applications bring to the web, and the Flex
>development paradigm, speak for themselves.
>
>> When I asked our contact at the old company that had developed
>> HTMLTransit why Big Company was increasing the price 10x he said it
>> was because they believed HTMLTransit had hit a wall at its price of
>> $499 and that there was a whole world of potential enterprise
>> customers who would not take seriously a product priced at just $499.
>
>Flex pricing was not derived from a desire to be taken seriously. Once
>again, Flex technology speaks for itself, without its price tag. Flex
>pricing is a reflection of what we believe its value to be. No more,
>no less.
>
>Please let me know if you have additional questions about Flex that I
>have not addressed here.
>
>Christian
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
