Piotr, my guess around low adoption by old flex users and new users is that we are still behind 1.0 and docs are still on the works. When we get to pass that point we'll be able to be more aggressive in communication efforts. I mean try to be exposed in publications specialized webs, and more. But the key point to do so is when we have Royale SDK and NPM publications be super easy to use and most people coming does not need too much effort to be up and running with royale.
it's like putting a rocket into orbit, everything depends on getting out of the stratosphere. I think we are very close to that point, but there are still a few months to reach 1.0 and be able to invest time that way. If we do it before, we can create the inverse effect on new users. On the other hand, cases like the one you expose are from people who are very outside Flex and do not even follow it. Therefore he does not know anything about FlexJS and Royale changes. For that type of people the important thing would be that when they search in google for things like "apache flex to html" Apache Royale appears directly to them, something that does not happen right now. In opposite, If you search "apache flex migration" we appear first place thanks to [1]. But maybe that page should be revisited to make it behave as a starting point for people reaching to Royale. just my 2 [1] https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 9:42, Piotr Zarzycki (<piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió: > The reality is showing that since this project exists I don't see any > single user who came from JS/.NET/Java world to our framework. Everyone who > are interested are from Flex/ActionScript world. At the beginning the > strategy with name changing was great, but it shows that is not working or > even worse some people are still lost and don't know that Royale exists - > even if they are from Flex world. [1] > > Crux is a great name, but if there is a word "marketing" attached to this > discussion - +1 for Swiz still, cause it takes an attention to us and this > is exactly what we need. More new fresh blood here which really help us > with new features. > > [1] > > http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/Update-for-FlexJS-Falcon-JX-td65654.html > > śr., 17 lip 2019 o 09:30 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > napisał(a): > > > Hi Yishay, > > > > El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss (<yishayj...@hotmail.com > >) > > escribió: > > > > > > > > It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always had > > In > > > mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider > > that > > > when deciding on a name. > > > > > > > > My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start from > > scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a > > great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes from > > old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to make > > something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name > (and > > concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems > > strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not > > understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things, community > > does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both. > > > > People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other > > things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux is > > what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now is > > Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears > > something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a > > ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use it > > or not... > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else > does. > > I > > > don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your > > efforts. > > > > > > > Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations > for a > > concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it > > could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right. > My > > observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type of > > effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long > time > > ago. > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
