David,
(No good can come from this, but anyway, here goes nothing).
*Let's get FUD Definition on the Table:*
*FUD is an abbreviation for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, a sales or
marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate
information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe
misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been
used more broadly.
*
I'd get why you think I'm spreading FUD now that I have a Microsoft logo
on my back :) it's not lost on me, yet I draw your attention to 2004 when
made similar remarks about how you guy screwed up in FLEX 1.5 and CFMX
with FLASH FORMS (Pre-Microsoft, so this is me talking, just Flex developer
Scott, and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] talking)
http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/267.cfm
http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/594.cfm
http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/591.cfm
http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/578.cfm
(there are more, I can even get stuff from Spectra days if you want? ).
So I'm not walking in cold of the street with my crit and in years
beforehand, your guy's supported my efforts with MossyBlog - now that I'm
Microsoft, well I guess things have changed and FUD's much easier response
to throw out there ... funny how a logo changes everything.
I'm not disputing FLEX as a technology (i.e. lost on why you brought the
whole VM into the discussion). I am however disputing the notion that it
appears all roads lead to LiveCycle, and the *current* *existing * *use*for FLEX is
being regarded as almost secondary. It's easy to say "
*We released the SDK, therefore it's your problem, go build*" and hope for
pats on the back. That would of worked, had you done this from the start.
Yet, Adobe/Macromedia didn't, they went after Enterprise with a product you
said yourself, they weren't happy with, charged them initially a price tag
of around $6k USD, it had issues around selling, so someone in their
infinite wisdom thereafter decided to up the price tag to $15k USD (or there
abouts) and used the notion " *If you buy 2 or more OEM's it gets cheaper*"
meanwhile everyone whom did buy the actual product stated: "*I don't want
the server, I want the damn output (SWF) in production environments only *"
(That fell on deaf ears so much so I used to get a lot of the sales guys go
"I know..") I won't even go into discussions I've had with Lucian about some
of this either.
Adobe/Macromedia there after agreed, by putting the SDK in the room with a
new improved VM. Why else would you suddenly change direction by (*granted
AJAX movement kicked off and the sales pitch on how RAD with FLEX is much
easier then JS/HTML suddenly shifted everyone's focus *), giving the
product away? meanwhile the so called "successful" owners of Flex 1.x are
left holding server-driven products (which again, only wanted the SWF piece
- which is the FLEX 2.0 SDK) and whom have not only paid a premium for it,
but have a fairly rocky road ahead in terms of migration to FLEX 2.0.
(Recap Point: Flex 1.x cost lots off dollars, Flex 2.0 costs nothing, but
if you want Flex 2.0 with the remoting pieces Flex 1.0 had well it's pony
up for the same price tag + more ) (where is he focus for FLEX? enteprise
again or RIA developers as I'm confused as hell).
Now the plot thickens, again you yourself are now stating that you're
looking to go after the Enterprise (again) with the new improved server
suite you are building, meanwhile your current existing developers are
screaming out for a piece of this puzzle as it would not only help them get
over many hurdles of client to server side connectivity but would also put a
lot of their invested time/money with learning FLEX onto the table for
future products going forward (Gives them more of a stronger story in ROI
discussions then at present). In a sense of the word, it appears the good
parts are being reserved for Enterprise while the left-overs are handed down
to developers with a " *DIY Post-it Note*" being put on the side (case and
point: you gave WebORB folks the brushoff, while Adobe staffers at WebDU
stated you were working with them - which was news to WebORB? As from memory
they were wanting to gain Adobe's support?)
Sounds like FLEX 1.0 days again? only new label - LiveCycle (Patterns are
the same, just approach slight adjusts (FUD be damned)).
My overall close-out point is simple: LiveCycle is the next attempt at
pushing Flash into the Enterprise market (I can see why, the idea of Flash
player sitting nice and snuggly inside the corporate firewall would make
anyone want to figure out revenue $$ can come from it somehow). It's bold
and kudos for doing so as nothing but good can come from it for everyone on
this list (Should you succeed). Yet do so not at the expense of having Flex
Developers on this list having to jump more financial mismanaged hurdles
while your guys figure out how the pieces play a role it just smacks of
customer disloyalty firstly and secondly - most important of all - results
in poor uptake of Flex ( *which by rights it should be doing much bigger
things and that alone annoys me, given my personal investment in the
technology*) and can cost people jobs.
Recap Point: So I'm advocating for Adobe to do better with existing
technology and give more to the people that got the technology where it is
today - developers, developers, developers. RIA could get stronger, which
validates everones passion and potential on this list resulting in the
Internet as we know it making leaps and bounds in progress!
Flex Data Services vs LiveCyle Data Services just sends the wrong signals,
being Microsoft is my employer granted, but in this occasion this is purely
my own opinion and I'm sure there will be complaints (both sides) :)
Scott.
P.S
I never left the fold (can't remember ever stating I did, we at Microsoft
also use Flash - Ted even pointed that out with Vista Launch Site), I code
offline a lot in FLEX, I'm currently trialing a project I have where I
swapped out AJAX from ASP.NET 2.0 with MXML using the server-side
compiler... just because i drink now from the Microsoft fire hose, doesn't
mean I turn my back on everything I worked on for the past 10 years.. there
is life after Microsoft & Adobe.
I've been doing this crap since Flash Generator days, don't get me
started... heh.
On 4/23/07, David Mendels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> This is all FUD. You contributed a lot to the Flex community for years,
> but the below is just so off-base.
>
> a) Flex 1.0 and 1.X did not "crash and burn". It was one of the most
> successfull new product introductions in the history of the company. It was
> a 1.X product, and it wasn't perfect, and in particular in advance of
> the new VM the performance was not where any of us wanted it yet at that
> time. That said, it still was a massive advance, did very well, and many
> people (not everyone) were very successfull with it. As soon as we had the
> performance issues nailed with the new VM, we broadened the strategy with
> the free FlexSDK and FlexBuilder 2. That was (IMO) the right order of
> operations. You mileage may vary, but Flex is taking off beautifully.
>
> b) Our strategy is clear. The FlexSDK is free and can work with any
> backend you choose--directly via XML, JSON, WebServices, or one of many
> implementations of AMF.
>
> c) We are building an enterprise server product line as well. It isn't
> intended for everyone. But it has tremendous value for use cases where it
> it relevent and it is also very successfull. It is clear you are not
> interested in it yourself, which is fine. Others are. We--Adobe--will
> continue to do our best to build great products and if we do people will use
> them. If that is a "conspiracy" I don't get it.
>
> d) Many applications have documents/forms as inputs, outputs,
> artifacts. Being able to integrate in a deep way with documents, using PDF
> (an ISO standard) can be very valuable. Some of the use cases I have seen
> lately include health and benefits enrollment, tax submissions, mortgage
> loan origination, insurance claims processing, corrospondence management,
> field service management, new account opening, clinical trial management,
> new drug submissions, grant applications, etc etc. I could go on, but the
> combination of Flex and LiveCycle (and PDF) enables some very powerfull and
> seamless applications that create better experiences, reduce costs, improve
> compliance, etc. I am not sure what is controversial here for you--these
> apps exist whether they are of interest to you or not. If you aren't
> interested, so be it. There is no tight coupling with Flex which is free.
> There is not now nor has there ever been a conspiracy. Whether many people
> or a few people are interested in LiveCycle is not really an metric that
> matters to the success of Flex and I am not sure what you are trying to
> prove.
>
> I trust one day you will come back to the fold -;) We'll keep working
> on advancing Flex and Flash Player and Apollo in the meantime--no
> conspiracies.
>
> -David
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *On Behalf Of *Scott Barnes
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:44 PM
> *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Will Microsoft's new Silverlight Player
> Kill our beloved Flex ?
>
>
>
> Paul: How many?
>
> Seriously, throw the numbers on the table because I got to tell you,
> both pre-Microsoft and post-Microsoft things haven't changed that radically
> that DMS is more favoured then SAAS. SAAS is the new SOA dream, and people
> want it because it's less red-tape to fight for a capital expense claim
> against not only software but now hardware + bodies to support the software
> that was bought. SAAS delegates that problem to someone else to solve and so
> it means in theory less bodies to support the infrastructure and more focus
> on supporting the users if need be.
>
> Not saying DMS is dead by any stretch, i'm sure LiveCycle solves a
> million and one points of interest in this space and it does look compelling
> when you separate it away from FLEX for a bit. Yet, let's take a step back
> and look at the bigger picture, how does FLEX developers world-wide get any
> wins from having LiveCycle in the room, and what percentage of them are in
> favour of LiveCycle development being slotted in front of FLEX?
>
> 2002 Paul, I've been waiting since 2002.. I waded through swapping and
> changing of Flash Framework directions (V1 to V2) like the rest of some of
> us on this list. I waited for Royale to hit the street only to watch it
> crash and burn due to price tag issues (which we all said loud and clear
> this bites! - listen to the customers is a tip). I watched CENTRAL get
> thrown our way, and was glad we could use this concept and wondered why it
> went away (EULA and again not consulting customers first was the
> perception). I watched as FLEX 2.0 came back, but free only the whole
> remoting piece dropped off the radar and came back as Flex Data Services.
> Only Its hard to find someone whom will host this product (why?) and
> secondly it doesn't support .NET and Java anymore? it's only Java? (It's not
> as if Remoting + .NET has been a mystery, it was there in the past and if
> the WebORB folks for example can make it happen? surely Adobe could).
>
> It's 2007 and I'm seeing Apollo have "PDF" Integration (which raises an
> eyebrow on whom this is really for - could be conspiracy theory going off
> signal, happy to eat crow if i'm wrong on this one as i'm not absolutely
> sure). Flex Data Services now has a new name, LiveCycle Data Services and
> FLEX 3 well.. i won't bother... I don't know all the answers but at the very
> least, I'm seeing all the warning signs of the past and for once, i'd like
> to raise this (once bit -ok, twice bit -fair enough, thrice bit no thanks).
>
> 2002 - 2007, we should be knee deep in RIA happiness and I should be
> still on the street making bundles of $$ and not working for Microsoft. Fact
> of the matter is I'm working for them, because to be openly honest i'm going
> to start over my RIA quest and see what these guys do with Silverlight and
> WPF as I've done my tour of duty with FLEX and have lots of scars to prove
> it (It wasn't all bad, I did make a nice living and once I broke through the
> learning barrier and was able to memorize the entire framework it was easy
> just lots of fingers on keyboard stuff).
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/23/07, Paul DeCoursey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Scott Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > How many enterprise / companies do you know are shopping around for
> > > electronic forms built in PDF vs SAAS solutions?
> >
> > Quite a few actually. The company I work for provides this as a
> > service for many fortune 500 companies. Some of those companies are
> > right now in the process of moving to Flex for the front end of their
> > forms systems. PDF has already deeply penetrated the business world.
> > Why do you feel PDF is a danger to business? It has many benefits
> > including being a universal format that is easy to read. It includes
> > versioning and security features required by SOX compliance. It just
> > makes sense for many organizations to adopt.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.mossyblog.com
>
>
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
