Can Adobe win the RIA War?

It doesn't look good right now, but hopefully they can get this right.

I looked at the the 'Flex Builder for linux' bug request on bugs.adobe.com and we're up to 348 votes for. Still very little response from the Adobe folks. Tom Chiverton just posted a comment saying that this has created a lot of discussion within Adobe. So if you haven't voted yet, take a moment and help out (http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FB-19053). He also posted a link to a very interesting article from InsideRIA that was posted yesterday talking about this and related issues of Adobe and it's lack of developer support. Funny we were talking about the slow compile times at the last Atlanta Flex UG meeting :).

The question remains and hopefully Adobe will get this right. Many of the developers they need to get into Flex are LInux/Java people. How do they expect to compete if they completely ignore this critical development community?

Comments

Craig Kaminsky wrote on 06/19/091:39 PM

If you come across this post, do take the time to read the article to which John linked. It's a very interesting read and has some additionally interesting responses from folks at Adobe.

John: I posted a question in the comments that I'd like to also ask you, as a Linux guy. Would you really pay $300-$400 for Flash Builder when you could use the open source SDK and a text editor or Eclipse to accomplish the same goals?

If the question comes off in any smart-alecky way, please know it's meant genuinely. My limited experience in the Linux world is that no one pays for software because everything that's needed (on one level or another) is available freely.

P.S. Your tag line (Fusing cod ... ) literally made me laugh out loud :). Good one!

Nick Collins wrote on 06/19/092:03 PM

I guess my question would be in the world of RIAs, would porting Flash Builder be enough? It seems to me if a user wants Flash Builder on Linux, they would probably also want to be able to run their other Adobe apps as well.

The official workflow is to use tools such as Catalyst, Fireworks, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Flash to create content, then code it up in Flash Builder, right? Well at least in my world, the Flex developers I know don't just do code, the do visual design as well, and they're not going to want to have two machines running to work.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be all for having the full product line ported, but that is a much larger task than just porting Flash Builder.

LQDstudios wrote on 06/19/092:33 PM

@Nick Collins - I have to say I tend to agree with you. I personally am a Designer/Developer and for me the Flash Platform, to me, is the only really streamlined platform for being able to go from concept to launch. Compile times aside, I really would not enjoy having to design everything with a Mac then move over to Linux box just to finish up.

It's funny though, as both a Designer and a Developer I really do understand both sides of the argument on this issue and I really feel like the blacksheep in the middle. lol

John Mason wrote on 07/17/094:08 PM

Even if they supported FB for linux without the design view would at least help. It would be far better to have the full version supported. The current strategy seems to be to go after the PHP developers which I think is a poor strategy. Java development tends to be more corporate and have higher yields than the typical PHP related projects. Java development is mostly conducted with the Linux OS, so allowing those developers to quickly go into Flex development is key. The Java world has been in need of the UI features of Flex for several years now and JavaFX isn't there yet. Why not grab as much of that market first and grab a lead on JavaFX.

Several people have noted they would pay for FB for linux. I would as well even though I'm very much in OSS. Like many of us, I understand there are times you have to monetize things to pay for development.

CodFusion

Fusing Cod is a very bad idea ;)

Old Archived Blog