http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4
enjoy!
On 4/23/07, Scott Barnes < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> (No good can come from this, but anyway, here goes nothing).
>
> *Let's get FUD Definition on the Table:*
> *FUD is an abbreviation for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, a sales or
> marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate
> information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe
> misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been
> used more broadly.
> *
> I'd get why you think I'm spreading FUD now that I have a Microsoft logo
> on my back :) it's not lost on me, yet I draw your attention to 2004 when
> made similar remarks about how you guy screwed up in FLEX 1.5 and CFMX
> with FLASH FORMS (Pre-Microsoft, so this is me talking, just Flex developer
> Scott, and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] talking)
>
> http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/267.cfm
> http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/594.cfm
> http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/591.cfm
> http://www.mossyblog.com/archives/578.cfm
>
> (there are more, I can even get stuff from Spectra days if you want? ).
>
> So I'm not walking in cold of the street with my crit and in years
> beforehand, your guy's supported my efforts with MossyBlog - now that I'm
> Microsoft, well I guess things have changed and FUD's much easier response
> to throw out there ... funny how a logo changes everything.
>
> I'm not disputing FLEX as a technology (i.e. lost on why you brought the
> whole VM into the discussion). I am however disputing the notion that it
> appears all roads lead to LiveCycle, and the *current* *existing **use*for FLEX is
being regarded as almost secondary. It's easy to say "
> *We released the SDK, therefore it's your problem, go build*" and hope
> for pats on the back. That would of worked, had you done this from the
> start. Yet, Adobe/Macromedia didn't, they went after Enterprise with a
> product you said yourself, they weren't happy with, charged them initially a
> price tag of around $6k USD, it had issues around selling, so someone in
> their infinite wisdom thereafter decided to up the price tag to $15k USD (or
> there abouts) and used the notion " *If you buy 2 or more OEM's it gets
> cheaper*" meanwhile everyone whom did buy the actual product stated: "*I
> don't want the server, I want the damn output (SWF) in production
> environments only *" (That fell on deaf ears so much so I used to get a
> lot of the sales guys go "I know..") I won't even go into discussions I've
> had with Lucian about some of this either.
>
> Adobe/Macromedia there after agreed, by putting the SDK in the room with
> a new improved VM. Why else would you suddenly change direction by (*granted
> AJAX movement kicked off and the sales pitch on how RAD with FLEX is much
> easier then JS/HTML suddenly shifted everyone's focus *), giving the
> product away? meanwhile the so called "successful" owners of Flex 1.xare left
holding server-driven products (which again, only wanted the SWF
> piece - which is the FLEX 2.0 SDK) and whom have not only paid a premium
> for it, but have a fairly rocky road ahead in terms of migration to FLEX
> 2.0.
>
> (Recap Point: Flex 1.x cost lots off dollars, Flex 2.0 costs nothing,
> but if you want Flex 2.0 with the remoting pieces Flex 1.0 had well it's
> pony up for the same price tag + more ) (where is he focus for FLEX?
> enteprise again or RIA developers as I'm confused as hell).
>
> Now the plot thickens, again you yourself are now stating that you're
> looking to go after the Enterprise (again) with the new improved server
> suite you are building, meanwhile your current existing developers are
> screaming out for a piece of this puzzle as it would not only help them get
> over many hurdles of client to server side connectivity but would also put a
> lot of their invested time/money with learning FLEX onto the table for
> future products going forward (Gives them more of a stronger story in ROI
> discussions then at present). In a sense of the word, it appears the good
> parts are being reserved for Enterprise while the left-overs are handed down
> to developers with a " *DIY Post-it Note*" being put on the side (case
> and point: you gave WebORB folks the brushoff, while Adobe staffers at WebDU
> stated you were working with them - which was news to WebORB? As from memory
> they were wanting to gain Adobe's support?)
>
> Sounds like FLEX 1.0 days again? only new label - LiveCycle (Patterns
> are the same, just approach slight adjusts (FUD be damned)).
>
> My overall close-out point is simple: LiveCycle is the next attempt at
> pushing Flash into the Enterprise market (I can see why, the idea of Flash
> player sitting nice and snuggly inside the corporate firewall would make
> anyone want to figure out revenue $$ can come from it somehow). It's bold
> and kudos for doing so as nothing but good can come from it for everyone on
> this list (Should you succeed). Yet do so not at the expense of having Flex
> Developers on this list having to jump more financial mismanaged hurdles
> while your guys figure out how the pieces play a role it just smacks of
> customer disloyalty firstly and secondly - most important of all - results
> in poor uptake of Flex ( *which by rights it should be doing much bigger
> things and that alone annoys me, given my personal investment in the
> technology*) and can cost people jobs.
>
> Recap Point: So I'm advocating for Adobe to do better with existing
> technology and give more to the people that got the technology where it is
> today - developers, developers, developers. RIA could get stronger, which
> validates everones passion and potential on this list resulting in the
> Internet as we know it making leaps and bounds in progress!
>
> Flex Data Services vs LiveCyle Data Services just sends the wrong
> signals, being Microsoft is my employer granted, but in this occasion this
> is purely my own opinion and I'm sure there will be complaints (both
> sides) :)
>
>
> Scott.
> P.S
> I never left the fold (can't remember ever stating I did, we at
> Microsoft also use Flash - Ted even pointed that out with Vista Launch
> Site), I code offline a lot in FLEX, I'm currently trialing a project I have
> where I swapped out AJAX from ASP.NET <http://asp.net/> 2.0 with MXML
> using the server-side compiler... just because i drink now from the
> Microsoft fire hose, doesn't mean I turn my back on everything I worked on
> for the past 10 years.. there is life after Microsoft & Adobe.
>
> I've been doing this crap since Flash Generator days, don't get me
> started... heh.
>
>
>
> On 4/23/07, David Mendels <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > This is all FUD. You contributed a lot to the Flex community for
> > years, but the below is just so off-base.
> >
> > a) Flex 1.0 and 1.X did not "crash and burn". It was one of the most
> > successfull new product introductions in the history of the company. It was
> > a 1.X product, and it wasn't perfect, and in particular in advance of
> > the new VM the performance was not where any of us wanted it yet at that
> > time. That said, it still was a massive advance, did very well, and many
> > people (not everyone) were very successfull with it. As soon as we had the
> > performance issues nailed with the new VM, we broadened the strategy with
> > the free FlexSDK and FlexBuilder 2. That was (IMO) the right order of
> > operations. You mileage may vary, but Flex is taking off beautifully.
> >
> > b) Our strategy is clear. The FlexSDK is free and can work with any
> > backend you choose--directly via XML, JSON, WebServices, or one of many
> > implementations of AMF.
> >
> > c) We are building an enterprise server product line as well. It
> > isn't intended for everyone. But it has tremendous value for use cases
> > where it it relevent and it is also very successfull. It is clear you are
> > not interested in it yourself, which is fine. Others are. We--Adobe--will
> > continue to do our best to build great products and if we do people will use
> > them. If that is a "conspiracy" I don't get it.
> >
> > d) Many applications have documents/forms as inputs, outputs,
> > artifacts. Being able to integrate in a deep way with documents, using PDF
> > (an ISO standard) can be very valuable. Some of the use cases I have seen
> > lately include health and benefits enrollment, tax submissions, mortgage
> > loan origination, insurance claims processing, corrospondence management,
> > field service management, new account opening, clinical trial management,
> > new drug submissions, grant applications, etc etc. I could go on, but the
> > combination of Flex and LiveCycle (and PDF) enables some very powerfull and
> > seamless applications that create better experiences, reduce costs, improve
> > compliance, etc. I am not sure what is controversial here for you--these
> > apps exist whether they are of interest to you or not. If you aren't
> > interested, so be it. There is no tight coupling with Flex which is free.
> > There is not now nor has there ever been a conspiracy. Whether many people
> > or a few people are interested in LiveCycle is not really an metric that
> > matters to the success of Flex and I am not sure what you are trying to
> > prove.
> >
> > I trust one day you will come back to the fold -;) We'll keep working
> > on advancing Flex and Flash Player and Apollo in the meantime--no
> > conspiracies.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *On Behalf Of *Scott Barnes
> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:44 PM
> > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Will Microsoft's new Silverlight
> > Player Kill our beloved Flex ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul: How many?
> >
> > Seriously, throw the numbers on the table because I got to tell you,
> > both pre-Microsoft and post-Microsoft things haven't changed that radically
> > that DMS is more favoured then SAAS. SAAS is the new SOA dream, and people
> > want it because it's less red-tape to fight for a capital expense claim
> > against not only software but now hardware + bodies to support the software
> > that was bought. SAAS delegates that problem to someone else to solve and so
> > it means in theory less bodies to support the infrastructure and more focus
> > on supporting the users if need be.
> >
> > Not saying DMS is dead by any stretch, i'm sure LiveCycle solves a
> > million and one points of interest in this space and it does look compelling
> > when you separate it away from FLEX for a bit. Yet, let's take a step back
> > and look at the bigger picture, how does FLEX developers world-wide get any
> > wins from having LiveCycle in the room, and what percentage of them are in
> > favour of LiveCycle development being slotted in front of FLEX?
> >
> > 2002 Paul, I've been waiting since 2002.. I waded through swapping and
> > changing of Flash Framework directions (V1 to V2) like the rest of some of
> > us on this list. I waited for Royale to hit the street only to watch it
> > crash and burn due to price tag issues (which we all said loud and clear
> > this bites! - listen to the customers is a tip). I watched CENTRAL get
> > thrown our way, and was glad we could use this concept and wondered why it
> > went away (EULA and again not consulting customers first was the
> > perception). I watched as FLEX 2.0 came back, but free only the whole
> > remoting piece dropped off the radar and came back as Flex Data Services.
> > Only Its hard to find someone whom will host this product (why?) and
> > secondly it doesn't support .NET and Java anymore? it's only Java? (It's not
> > as if Remoting + .NET has been a mystery, it was there in the past and if
> > the WebORB folks for example can make it happen? surely Adobe could).
> >
> > It's 2007 and I'm seeing Apollo have "PDF" Integration (which raises
> > an eyebrow on whom this is really for - could be conspiracy theory going off
> > signal, happy to eat crow if i'm wrong on this one as i'm not absolutely
> > sure). Flex Data Services now has a new name, LiveCycle Data Services and
> > FLEX 3 well.. i won't bother... I don't know all the answers but at the very
> > least, I'm seeing all the warning signs of the past and for once, i'd like
> > to raise this (once bit -ok, twice bit -fair enough, thrice bit no thanks).
> >
> > 2002 - 2007, we should be knee deep in RIA happiness and I should be
> > still on the street making bundles of $$ and not working for Microsoft. Fact
> > of the matter is I'm working for them, because to be openly honest i'm going
> > to start over my RIA quest and see what these guys do with Silverlight and
> > WPF as I've done my tour of duty with FLEX and have lots of scars to prove
> > it (It wasn't all bad, I did make a nice living and once I broke through the
> > learning barrier and was able to memorize the entire framework it was easy
> > just lots of fingers on keyboard stuff).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/23/07, Paul DeCoursey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Scott Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > How many enterprise / companies do you know are shopping around
> > > for
> > > > electronic forms built in PDF vs SAAS solutions?
> > >
> > > Quite a few actually. The company I work for provides this as a
> > > service for many fortune 500 companies. Some of those companies are
> > > right now in the process of moving to Flex for the front end of
> > > their
> > > forms systems. PDF has already deeply penetrated the business world.
> > >
> > > Why do you feel PDF is a danger to business? It has many benefits
> > > including being a universal format that is easy to read. It includes
> > > versioning and security features required by SOX compliance. It just
> > > makes sense for many organizations to adopt.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Scott Barnes
> > http://www.mossyblog.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.mossyblog.com
>
>
