...more recent posts
Obviously I've been following and thinking about Adobe and their plans for web development. At the same time I've chosen a different route, with the open web standards of HTML, CSS, and javascript. Adobe Flash and Flex and AIR are some seriously cool tools that give you access to very rich features and, comparatively, a lot of speed. These two different paths are obviously in competition (if not economic, at least for developer hearts and minds,) but they are also closely related. Adobe has clearly been moving to make javascript a first class citizen in it's environments (for instance, you can build AIR apps with all javascript and zero actionscript.)
And this makes me wonder about Tamarin, which is an open source project that is Adobe's contribution to Mozilla. The basic point is to make javascript really fast. Which is great. And great for Adobe since they are now leveraging javascript in their development world.
But I wonder if they are rethinking their decision in light of the progress that projects like EXTjs have made building a development framework on top of pure HTML, CSS and javascript. Sure it will never have all the rich features of the Adobe environments, but some constraints are not always a bad thing (especially where those constraints force you to use the native widgets people expect to see on the web, and to build regular web pages that work the way people expect.) Plus the technology is all open and free for the developer. But there is a real issue, and that's speed. EXTjs (as well as any of the others like jQuery, YUI, prototype/scriptalicious, etc...) apps are slow compared to their rich Adobe conterparts. Really slow in some cases.
In the future, no doubt, this won't matter so much. Our computers will keep getting faster. And then there is Tamarin out there on the horizon ready to supercharge javascript 2. Which brings me back to my question. Why would Adobe want to contribute Tamarin? Seems like a radical speed up of javascript is going to make EXTjs et al much more competitive with Adobe's projects.
Felix Salmon makes the economic case for full rather than partial RSS feeds. Amen. You might also just make the don't needlessly harass people trying to read what you write case, which I guess is what his economic case boils down to.
I'm still not on board, but Adobe is building some impressive web development tools. Their latest release preview (release some time next year) is Thermo, a graphical editing environment aimed at bridging the gap between old style (photoshop) designers and web coders.
You just import a photoshop mock-up of a web page (what can now be more and more thought of as a web application user interface,) and Thermo understands all the layers and provides a 'convert artwork to...' command which automatically converts, say, a dummy text input field from the mock up into a real text input field (or button, check box, combo box, date picker, color field, etc...)
Sounds good for big shops with more graphic know how than web knowledge. Not sure I want all those people being able to compete with me (and it's not clear that Thermo will actually let them and/or if it will just end up enabling a lot of half baked web apps in a Visual Basic sort of way,) but I have to admit that Adobe is cranking out a lot of cool sounding tools.
Destination Moorestown. Due in the second half of 2008, this Intel chip is slated to bring the power of todays desktop computers to your portable devices.
The article also has an interesting post script on the inevitability of the x86 architecture.
WebRunner is a simple XULRunner based browser that hosts web applications without the normal web browser user interface. WebRunner is based on a concept called Site Specific Browsers (SSB). An SSB is an application with an embedded browser designed to work exclusively with a single web application. It's doesn't have the menus, toolbars and accoutrement's of a normal web browser. Some people have called it a "distraction free browser" because none of the typical browser chrome is used. An SSB also has a tighter integration with the OS and desktop than a typical web application running through a web browser.Could this be an open source Adobe Air (which used to be Adobe Apollo if you've been following along here) competitor? I'm intrigued.
Here are some introductory posts from the creator: site specific browsers, webrunner, using webrunner.
I'm having a hard time pinning this part down though: "An SSB also has a tighter integration with the OS and desktop than a typical web application running through a web browser." Specifically, how much access to the local filesystem do you have? Does it support drag and drop of files into / out of the application?
I'd love it this turns out well since I really like the direction Adobe Air is taking, but I'm nervous about getting on board with an all Adobe technology. And, of course, this sort of solution only makes sense for a really specific problem - but it just so happens I have one of these problems. I'll dig more and follow up in comments.
Interesting. I too thought fibre optic cables were quite difficult to tap. Turns out this isn't the case. It's not only fairly easy (supposedly) but the equipment costs less than $1000. Just another reason for people to actually do what everyone knows they should do: don't send any sensitive data over any wire in unencrypted format.
Amazon.com launches music download site. 256kb/s MP3s with no DRM. And presumably Amazon knows how to make a non-annoying purchasing experience. This sounds like a contender. They say they have 2 million songs, but the only major labels are EMI and Universal. The iTunes Music Store already has the EMI catalogue with no DRM at 256kb/s, so the Universal stuff is the only major new thing here. But there are a bunch of smaller labels going DRM free including: Alligator Records, HighTone Records, Madacy Entertainment, Sanctuary Records, Rounder Records, Righteous Babe Records, Sugar Hill Records, and Trojan Records. Nice to see some competition and nice to see the no DRM thing spreading a little, and at a completely acceptable bitrate to boot.
Here's the press release.
Did flicker.com (typo-squatting site for the popular flickr.com domain) really turn down a $700,000 offer for their name?
Radioshift: likeTiVo for radio. Except unlike TiVo, there is no monthly fee. Radioshift comes with a guide containing 50,000 radio shows and stations. Tell it what you like and it records it (in the background, with multiple formats supported, and it can record multiple simultaneous streams.) Records internet radio, and standard AM/FM if you have something like the $50 Griffin Radio Shark. Mac OS X only. Nicely priced at $32.
I'm not real big into radio, but this is pretty amazing if you are.
Vaguely related to the last post and comments, Tim Bray has a six point plan for a cellular carrier to create an explosion in the mobile data space. It involves radically opening up the network though, so you can be sure no one is going to take his advice any time soon. I'm confident it would work though. Number 5 is especially smart:
Don't ask developers for any money. But sell the use of your billing system at a really attractive rate, so people can sign up for apps and have it billed to their phone plan. Do it at a scale that an app can charge a dime a month and still make money on scale.That would change everything. It could provide a real business model for (to use the overplayed and under defined term) Web 2.0.
People just don't want to pay (even small amounts) for content on the web. But for some reason I think they would pay small amounts for the same content from the same web if they are receiving it on their mobile and the billing is totally seamless. I think a lot of the friction we see now in terms of getting people to pay is just that people are reluctant to break out their credit card or to make yet another account somewhere like PayPal. But if your mobile device *was* your credit card I think the situation would change.