On 9/29/05, Tariq Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See SAP for starters, then once you jump that hurdle, now look at anything with the word "ORACLE" in it.
You'd still outlay the same costs if not more with a HTML based solution such as CFMX. Furthermore, if you are to comply with SOX you have to jump through a bit more hurdles in authenticating the HTML solution is immune to various DOS attacks (injection attacks, packet sniffing the works). Then you have resources and costs associated to building a HTML application. If you are going down the path of the AJAX momentum, good luck in comparing the two.
I'm also talking about systems which have a status "Please turn off in 1 year, no ifs, no but's". These do exist in enterprise, whereby a legacy green system is currently turned on and there is about a handful of people left in the world who know what it does, its that system the IT Director is scared off the most and nearly faints when the LED's on the outer box suddenly goes out... Point is, something has to replace it and typically the cowboy approach is lock one self into a proprietary solution. Salvaging existing systems is extremely delicate and at times hard, and the main trip up is simply that whatever gets put in its place isn't agile enough to cope with not only "replacement" but growth. Some do, some cope really well and some praise technologies like .NET for salvation.
Other times its just this mutated be-spoked solution comprising of part HTML and part other that realistically is hopeless at best in terms of getting data in and out.
We at omniEffect specialise in using FLEX to reach out and touch existing backend systems but provide a uniform view. If you think about a users daily routine how many UI's do they go in and out of just for farming data. How peoples perception of how data can be accessed is simply due to whats been handed down to them by someone who probably should never of had the job of deciding how UI works. In stead, if you provide a uniform view that reaches out and touches multiple assets within an Enterprise, you now stand a better chance of circumventing a lot of issues. Through FLEX you could also provide a much easier and accessible way to improve on Business Processes in general? does that save money? most of the time its a tick for yes. In some Ent Solutions its extremely hard to get a simple report, and to do so its this monolithic task, which can be at times put into the "too hard basket" (thus we see these faction(s) of MS Access databases, excel spreadsheets existing..all open to screw ups, resulting in say, a general ledger being slightly inaccurate!)...
FLEX provides a visual input into business intelligence and it may not be profitable, it just maybe enough to break even on. Yet, it can allow folks the ability to move forward, to treat their backend as "content" instead of this mutated ball of part UI part Logic.
The main problem with FLEX today, is its not really being pushed as much as it should. There are too many "Kiosk" style applications floating around the net as "look here, this is a great example of flex"... which is great...yet if you put these examples into perspective and outlay say 300k as Tariq put it, it starts looking like probably a bad ROI.
To me FLEX so far is this powerful tool that every ones too scared to use. Mission critical systems? hmm, I'm a realist in saying that the chances of FLEX getting that much prime time within a company this early in the game, is probably a risk unto itself. There isn't a lot of skillbase in the market yet to drive home its power as so far we have seen probably a lot of backend developers suddenly become "Flex developers" which is scary..not because they are dumb, far from it, it takes a whole new mindset to play in the RIA world as we are stuck between half-website and half-thickware application.
FLEX is dirt cheap to someone who's staring at a huge backend system that's been told in order to upgrade, you must implement this weird HTML/JS based solution...
In my opinion, FLEX 2.0 will give us a better stance in "FLEX goes Prime Time", but that's another discussion.
If all we are using FLEX for is a simple replacement to an existing "HTML application" or as a POC, yes its expensive prov
You made FLEX replace an existing application, did it simply replace or increase its appeal? Thats the key difference. If you are buying FLEX to replace existing stuff and that's all it does is put a "Flash" front-end to a HTML version then you've just spent a fortune on something that probably didn't require it. FLEX provides the ability to shift perception on how data works, go from rows of peoples names to displaying each person as a document. Open that document and you find more data centered around that person. Its got the power yet to provide your users the ability to see more details or cull details back... its just not being.
Selling FLEX to management is probably the hardest thing to do, as firstly what the hell is a "FLEX" anyway? secondly "You mean flash does more then spank the monkey? really how?"... at omniEffect we do a presos and the first thing they see is the UI and immediately start the whole "well that's all well and good to have a pretty UI but listen here sonny, we have this big complex thing called a backend and it needs to talk to that, you get me?" - which we then illustrate thats actually the easiest part, and then once they overcome that, its back to the UI and suddenly they are seeing visions of how data intertwines to formulate this "great view" - thus enter an emotional interface.
Price? at this point if you sold them on the fact that you could put a FLEX UI on anything they have behind the scenes and they have 100% total control over the UI, price becomes a secondary point. The key to selling FLEX is, don't tell them its FLEX. Say "Unified View"..... if they ask technically whats going on, tell them, but don't try and sound like a Pro-Flash Salesman... Flash still needs more exposure to those who don't know what Macromedia does fully and it sadly gets coupled a lot with the "Skip Intro" or "spank the monkey" gimmicks.
Yeah but for every war story like this, i could produce more proactive ones. The ability to remove MS Access from a company alone is something a lot of IT Directors will be willing to knife someone for. FLEX has a lot more on the table then just pretty UI, it just needs better shaping..
Well I don't know if I would venture to "dirt cheap". What other systems are you referring to?
See SAP for starters, then once you jump that hurdle, now look at anything with the word "ORACLE" in it.
If you're enterprise, and building mission critical apps, and especially if it affects financial performance and need to be SOX compliant you're basic setup is:
- 1 Development WS
- 1 QA Server
- High Availability Setup (at least 2 load balanced machines).
- Disaster Recovery Site (min 1 web server).
If you're using decent hardware with 4CPU Xeons, you've got 5 machines * 4 cpus/ea = 20 CPUs * $15K/cpu = $300 000.
You would have to REALLY boost automation, workflow efficiency, etc... to recuperate the cost of Flex licensing and Flex application development (not everyone is Scott Barnes level super coder) vs a CF/Whatever based solution. Not to say that it can't be done, and I'm
You'd still outlay the same costs if not more with a HTML based solution such as CFMX. Furthermore, if you are to comply with SOX you have to jump through a bit more hurdles in authenticating the HTML solution is immune to various DOS attacks (injection attacks, packet sniffing the works). Then you have resources and costs associated to building a HTML application. If you are going down the path of the AJAX momentum, good luck in comparing the two.
I'm also talking about systems which have a status "Please turn off in 1 year, no ifs, no but's". These do exist in enterprise, whereby a legacy green system is currently turned on and there is about a handful of people left in the world who know what it does, its that system the IT Director is scared off the most and nearly faints when the LED's on the outer box suddenly goes out... Point is, something has to replace it and typically the cowboy approach is lock one self into a proprietary solution. Salvaging existing systems is extremely delicate and at times hard, and the main trip up is simply that whatever gets put in its place isn't agile enough to cope with not only "replacement" but growth. Some do, some cope really well and some praise technologies like .NET for salvation.
Other times its just this mutated be-spoked solution comprising of part HTML and part other that realistically is hopeless at best in terms of getting data in and out.
We at omniEffect specialise in using FLEX to reach out and touch existing backend systems but provide a uniform view. If you think about a users daily routine how many UI's do they go in and out of just for farming data. How peoples perception of how data can be accessed is simply due to whats been handed down to them by someone who probably should never of had the job of deciding how UI works. In stead, if you provide a uniform view that reaches out and touches multiple assets within an Enterprise, you now stand a better chance of circumventing a lot of issues. Through FLEX you could also provide a much easier and accessible way to improve on Business Processes in general? does that save money? most of the time its a tick for yes. In some Ent Solutions its extremely hard to get a simple report, and to do so its this monolithic task, which can be at times put into the "too hard basket" (thus we see these faction(s) of MS Access databases, excel spreadsheets existing..all open to screw ups, resulting in say, a general ledger being slightly inaccurate!)...
FLEX provides a visual input into business intelligence and it may not be profitable, it just maybe enough to break even on. Yet, it can allow folks the ability to move forward, to treat their backend as "content" instead of this mutated ball of part UI part Logic.
The main problem with FLEX today, is its not really being pushed as much as it should. There are too many "Kiosk" style applications floating around the net as "look here, this is a great example of flex"... which is great...yet if you put these examples into perspective and outlay say 300k as Tariq put it, it starts looking like probably a bad ROI.
To me FLEX so far is this powerful tool that every ones too scared to use. Mission critical systems? hmm, I'm a realist in saying that the chances of FLEX getting that much prime time within a company this early in the game, is probably a risk unto itself. There isn't a lot of skillbase in the market yet to drive home its power as so far we have seen probably a lot of backend developers suddenly become "Flex developers" which is scary..not because they are dumb, far from it, it takes a whole new mindset to play in the RIA world as we are stuck between half-website and half-thickware application.
FLEX is dirt cheap to someone who's staring at a huge backend system that's been told in order to upgrade, you must implement this weird HTML/JS based solution...
In my opinion, FLEX 2.0 will give us a better stance in "FLEX goes Prime Time", but that's another discussion.
If all we are using FLEX for is a simple replacement to an existing "HTML application" or as a POC, yes its expensive prov
sure it can (reminder: I am a huge Flex proponent); but looking at things from a business sense it has to be measureable and provable. Eg I made one Flex app that compared to what was there before saves about $200K/yr, but how much more it would save over a CF based solution is hard to measure.
You made FLEX replace an existing application, did it simply replace or increase its appeal? Thats the key difference. If you are buying FLEX to replace existing stuff and that's all it does is put a "Flash" front-end to a HTML version then you've just spent a fortune on something that probably didn't require it. FLEX provides the ability to shift perception on how data works, go from rows of peoples names to displaying each person as a document. Open that document and you find more data centered around that person. Its got the power yet to provide your users the ability to see more details or cull details back... its just not being.
Selling FLEX to management is probably the hardest thing to do, as firstly what the hell is a "FLEX" anyway? secondly "You mean flash does more then spank the monkey? really how?"... at omniEffect we do a presos and the first thing they see is the UI and immediately start the whole "well that's all well and good to have a pretty UI but listen here sonny, we have this big complex thing called a backend and it needs to talk to that, you get me?" - which we then illustrate thats actually the easiest part, and then once they overcome that, its back to the UI and suddenly they are seeing visions of how data intertwines to formulate this "great view" - thus enter an emotional interface.
Price? at this point if you sold them on the fact that you could put a FLEX UI on anything they have behind the scenes and they have 100% total control over the UI, price becomes a secondary point. The key to selling FLEX is, don't tell them its FLEX. Say "Unified View"..... if they ask technically whats going on, tell them, but don't try and sound like a Pro-Flash Salesman... Flash still needs more exposure to those who don't know what Macromedia does fully and it sadly gets coupled a lot with the "Skip Intro" or "spank the monkey" gimmicks.
So when trying to sell to management the sexy $300K Flex solution vs the not as sexy $15K CF solution which gets the job done - you have to account for at least a $285Kdifference. Because the opportunity cost is that $285K could have bought you 3 or 4 more developers for that year and double your development capacity which could have resulted in a bunch more apps that save or make money that aren't addressed for that year.
Yeah but for every war story like this, i could produce more proactive ones. The ability to remove MS Access from a company alone is something a lot of IT Directors will be willing to knife someone for. FLEX has a lot more on the table then just pretty UI, it just needs better shaping..
Bla bla Bla... $300K is a TOUGH sell even for Enterprises with the deepest of pockets, and it can be done obviously, but 'dirt cheap' in my humble opinion is understanding it a weeeee bit. :)
Depends on context i guess, for me seeing the disparate nightmares that exist its dddddddirt cheap...for others its expensive.. I've had to hats on, i've walked in their hand on heart and swore "Buy flex it saves money" but then forgot that my co-developers couldn't bothered learning stuff and kept reverting back to HTML because it was safe... Its a hard sell if all you have is one small POC style app on the workload...yet if you have a much bigger prize, it comes in under budget.
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
| Web site design development | Computer software development | Software design and development |
| Macromedia flex | Software development best practice |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
