Hi Laurent,

Please don't assume I am in such a box. We are using AJAX at Macromedia
too, and using AJAX and Flash together (see Mike and Christian's work on
our blog aggregator). At a bunch of recent conferences, my colleague
Kevin Lynch has been actively promoting examples such a Adaptive Path's
measure map that show folks a good example of AJAX and Flash together.
At Macromedia, I am also responsible for Dreamweaver and ColdFusion and
we are very invested in the browser runtime as well as the Flash Player.
We are increasingly focused on breaking down barriers between these 2
worlds.

My point about install rates was not to imply that there is no
innovation in the AJAX world--indeed as Mike notes, the rate of
innovation is tremendous. What I was referring to was the rate of
innovation (and then distribution) in the " underlying capabilities of
the client-side enabling technology," per Jonathan's note (eg the
Browser vs the Flash Player, not the Flex framework vs the OpenRico or
Tibco or Backbase or whatever AJAX framework.)

Also, I want to stress Mike's comment: the Flash Player does not install
the Yahoo toolbar. As a developer, you can make the install process
transparent and ensure no offer of a Yahoo toolbar is presented. There
is such an offer on our website, but no developer needs to point this
this (rare) install mechanism. We invested very heavily in a very
seamless "express install" mechanism that lets you keep your users on
your site, update the Player and keep going with no additional installs,
pages or distractions.

Your examples of good AJAX sites is instructive...I think that Google
Suggest for example is a perfect example using the framework I suggest
in the previous email of something better done with AJAX than with
Flash, because it is a incremental addition to an exisiting HTML site.
That makes AJAX very appropriate and the impact is very nice. You could
rewrite it in Flex/Flash but with that design, there is no benefit to
doing so. GoogleMaps is an example of the kind of site that can be
built with AJAX or with Flex/Flash (see maps.yahoo.com). Yahoo makes
some different design choices and adds a lot more functionality (eg
multi-point routing). I think the impact of the underlying technology
choice will be greater and greater over time--I expect it will be far
easier to add functionality and improve the Yahoo site because of their
choice.

-David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent Muchacho
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 8:43 AM
> To: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [ajax_and_ria] Flash / AJAX decision making
>
> Hi David,
>
> I agree with you on all the good thing Flash can do. I think
> the rate of innovation of AJAX/DHTML application as not being
> frozen on the last 5 year you can simply put your nose out
> there, in a world outside of your enclosed Flash cocoon where
> you seems to think that it's the best for everything.
>
> Many examples of AJAX are built with DHTML and Not Flash e.g.
> Google Map, Google Suggest, http://www.37signals.com/ ,
> http://www.zimbra.com/, http://del.icio.us etc...
>
> This simply because there is no need of flash for most of
> this application and they offer much better experiences then
> downloading a new flash player or upgrading each time you guy
> bring new functionality into the plugin. Yes because we have
> to remember on things here Flash Player is a Plugin and if
> you don't download it and install it you whole user
> experience is reduced to an really ugly icon and you don't
> nothing instead.
>
> I apologise in advance to you and all Flash lover out there,
> but please can you explain to me why when you install Flash
> Player 8 on your machine it will install Yahoo toolbar
> without asking you if you even want to have the yahoo toolbar.
>
> I'm a UI application developer mostly writing DHTML but often
> I will direct Project manager and designer too choose Flash
> over DHTML because I recognise that they are other technology
> out there who are better suited for the application we are building.
> Please don't close your mind on this kind of thing specially
> now when we are living in the new internet boom where the
> vibe is too work together not against each other.
>
> Laurent
>
> Ps: Sometimes you need to think outside the Box you are living in
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mendels
> Sent: 19 November 2005 03:39
> To: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [ajax_and_ria] Flash / AJAX decision making
>
> Jon,
>
> Good points.
>
> One thing then to note however, as it relates to (1) is the
> rate of innovation and rate of distribution of " underlying
> capabilities of the client-side enabling technology. "
> Indeed, this is one of the key points of different between
> Flash and AJAX/DHTML and again it can lead to comparing
> apples to oranges.
>
> With the Flash Player, we are able to introduce major new
> functionality, synced with new tooling, every 1-2 years (less
> in the case of 8.5) and get 50%+ adoption in less than 6
> months. (Recently our rate of distribution is accelerating
> with over 5M successful installs per day.) Further, with the
> Flash Player less than 1 meg, broadband usage ubiquitous for
> *some* communities and application scenarios, and Flash
> Player's "Express Intstall", the Player can upgrade itself
> with a single click and in less time than some web pages
> might take to load. Contrast the client side technology for
> AJAX/DHTML, the pace of innovation has been glacial for the
> last 5 years, and when new functionality is introduced it
> takes an incredibly long time for it to be distributed and
> accepted widely, and even then, there is a frequent
> occurrence of incompatibilities between different
> implementations. Relating this to the example you provide
> below, if the Flash Player advanced its text layout engine,
> one could reasonably start to target that for applications
> being deployed soon after the new Flash Player was released
> (eg within 6 months if your target distribution was 50%+).
> However, if Firefox added native access to WebCams, or IE did
> that, you might want
> 2-5 times longer before you could reasonably count on 50+ penetration.
> Further, with broadband + "Express Install" I think the
> equation changes dramatically and many people will start to
> target the capabilities of a new Flash Player as soon as it
> is released--we are for example already starting to see many
> major internet properties (Sony Pictures, Toyota,
> etc.) taking advantage of features that *require* Flash
> Player 8 within
> 3 months of shipping Flash Player 8. That is new in 2005 and
> is accelerating. I think it is an exciting change and can
> really enable developers to leverage state of the art
> technology much more quickly and create more compelling applications.
>
> -David
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Boutelle
> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 5:27 PM
> > To: ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com; ajax_and_ria@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [ajax_and_ria] Flash / AJAX decision making
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I agree that this conversation ends up having "apples to oranges"
> > problems.
> >
> > There are at least two dimensions to the decision:
> >
> > 1)The underlying capabilities of the client-side enabling
> technology.
> > In the case of Flash, this is whatever version of the Flash
> plugin is
> > currently at 50%+ adoption. In the case of AJAX, this is
> the DOM, and
> > javascript objects, and html rendering capabilities
> supported by the
> > major browser vendors.
> >
> > 2)The engineering framework used to build software that uses this
> > client-side technology. In the case of Flash, this is FLEX
> 2 and the
> > latest version of the Flash IDE. In the case of AJAX this is the
> > unruly but rapidly improving open-source frameworks (RICO, DOJO,
> > MOCHI, et al), and the more mature but proprietary commercial
> > frameworks (hi Jep!).
> >
> > As application developers, we live in the world of (2). We
> install the
> > IDEs and learn the APIs, and improvements in these make our lives
> > dramatically easier over time. But (1) is where the longer-lasting
> > constraints are. (2) gets rapidly better over time, while (1) has a
> > potentially greater impact on the core nature of the application.
> >
> > For example, FLEX 2 may (hypothetically) bring rapid application
> > development nirvana. But if the Flash plugin is a weak way
> to display
> > or work with text, FLEX 2 won't change that. If browsers
> don't provide
> > a javascript API that gives native access to client microphones and
> > webcams, that's also unlikely to change in the next several years.
> >
> > I'm more interested in (1) than (2), because I think it forms the
> > basis for decisions that will hold up over time.
> > -Jon
> >
> > At 12:20 PM 11/18/2005, David Mendels wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > >Interesting thread. I am from Macromedia and certainly
> > biased, but I
> > >do think there are strengths for each and I'll try to write some
> > >relatively balanced notes:
> > >
> > >I think the discussion is a bit awkward however because we are
> > >comparing apples and oranges in many cases. Some people
> discussing
> > >Flash really are talking about the Flash of 1-2 to 5 years ago,
> > >pre-Flex and certainly pre Flash Player 8.5. As for AJAX, are we
> > >basing the discussion on the "roll your own" case, or on
> some of the
> > >frameworks/tools that are available, or on a specific
> tool/framework
> > >such as Tibco GI or Backbase? The pros and cons differ greatly
> > >depending on which of these you are comparing to which.
> > >
> > >Trying to parse this out a bit, some high level pros and cons that
> > >aren't dependent on which version, tool or framework you are using:
> > >
> > >Flash is better at handling rich media, audio, video,
> > graphic effects,
> > >transitions, motion graphics, data visualization. It is
> > also better at
> > >handling binary data streams, two way audio and video. It has much
> > >richer capabilities for local data storage. In general, it
> > excels are
> > >creating an integrated media "experience" that is highly
> branded. It
> > >excels at creating cross-browser applications that runs
> identically
> > >across OS/Browser. In Player 8.5, it has a faster, more
> > robust and more
> > >advanced javascript engine (ECMA-Script) than any browser
> today with
> > >better XML handling (E4X) which consistancy across
> > browsers/platforms.
> > >Flash is better for applications that need to received
> > "pushed" data as
> > >well as offline and occasionally connected use cases. Flash
> > has higher
> > >quality and richer printing capabilities (though historically
> > >developers have not taken enough advantage of this.)
> > >
> > >Ajax/DHTML is better for adding incremental functionality to an
> > >existing HTML/DHTML page. Eg. If you have a page with a
> search box,
> > >adding "google suggest" style intelligence to that search
> > field. This
> > >can be done in Flash, but it is easier to add it incrementally to
> > >existing pages/apps with AJAX/DHTML. I have to say I think
> > that is the
> > >biggest single advantage because it lets people adopt AJAX
> > more gradually.
> > >HTML/DHTML have in some ways richer text layout capabilities
> > than the
> > >Flash Player for flowed text, large blocks of text, text
> with inline
> > >graphics. (Flash Player has stonger support for non system
> > fonts, font
> > >anti-aliasing, text effects, text on a path).
> > >
> > >Neither one inherently loads faster than the other--that
> > depends on the
> > >app and the design. Neither one appears to be generally more
> > performant
> > >than the other--this also is highly dependent on the app and the
> > >design--there are clearly cases where one is much better
> > than the other.
> > >It is important not to ascribe design choices to the underlying
> > >technology. For example, Google Maps (AJAX) load a bit
> faster than
> > >Yahoo Maps (Flex/Flash). However Yahoo maps has
> significantly more
> > >functionality in the client. That was a design choice--as a
> > user, you
> > >can decide which you like better, but it doesn't in and of
> > itself tell
> > >you if AJAX loads faster than Flash.
> > >
> > >As for accessibility, HTML has advantages for simple use cases,
> > >Flash/Flex appears to have the edge for complex applications.
> > >
> > >As for back end integration, Flash/Flex provides many more options:
> > >Remote Object invocation, Messaging, Binary Sockets, etc.
> > >
> > >As for skinning and styling, I think that this has
> historically been
> > >harder in Flash, but with Flex 2.0 it is now easier and more
> > flexbile
> > >than any specific AJAX approach I have seen. Both have good
> > support for
> > >CSS.
> > >
> > >As far as standards support and openness, I think
> > counter-intuitively
> > >Flash now has an equal story with better support for the
> recent ECMA
> > >Script standard, E4X, CSS support, XML/SOAP/WSDL support, and a
> > >published and widely implemented fileformat and much much wider OS
> > >support (including game machines, cell phones, cameras,
> MP3 devices,
> > >etc). AJAX/DHTML of course has better support for HTML
> > itself, but has
> > >to wrestle with different implementations in different
> > >browsers/platforms.
> > >
> > >As for developer productivity and maintainability, the "roll
> > your own"
> > >approach with both Flash and AJAX/DHTML tends to be hard to
> > maintain in
> > >both cases and developer productivity varies greatly with the very
> > >specific experience of the developer. At the moment, I
> believe the
> > >Flex offers an order of magnitude advantage in developer
> > productivity,
> > >maintainability, extensibility for complex applications.
> > Talking with
> > >developers of large and complex applications (eg. A mortgage loan
> > >application with over 1M lines of code, or a insurance
> company agent
> > >broker application with a 30 person 12-18 month development
> > cycle) the
> > >advantages of Flex and Flash increase dramatically over AJAX/DHTML.
> > >Testing costs are generally also lower because of better
> > cross browser
> > >compatibility. That said, at this point the fair comparison
> > is not Flex
> > >2.0 vs "roll your own" AJAX/DHTML, but with toolkits such as
> > Tibco GI,
> > >Backbase or OpenRico.org. Each one of those would require
> > some depth
> > >of knowledge to do a fair competitive review and I can't do
> > that, but I
> > >think as this discussion continues it is important to
> > compare apples to
> > >apples. One should compare upfront cost, TCO, tooling,
> > framework, etc
> > >etc etc.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >David
> > >Macromedia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----^-------^------^--------^-------^
> > Jon Boutelle
> > Principal, Uzanto Consulting
> > Mountain View, CA
> >
> > Office Phone:650-564-0000
> > Cell Phone :510-708-9825
> > skype id: jboutelle
> > www.uzanto.com
> > www.jonathanboutelle.com
> > ----^-------^------^--------^-------^
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo!
> > Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/spZplB/TM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb."
> Click and help stop AIDS now.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpTY2A/lzNLAA/yQLSAA/spZplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>