[thelist] Macromedia & "Rich Internet Applications"

[Buffington, Michael]

Tom, I'm going to reply point by point as you've laid it out in your original message:

***
MM states the benefits are (business managers):
- Increasing the Number of Successful End-User Transactions. As if
you couldn't do this otherwise with good design and architecture.
***

No argument here. Focusing on good Information Architecture, User Interface and User Centric Design are winners regardless of the platform.

***
- Helping Your Online Business Get to Market Faster. I wan't to vomit
when I hear this nonsense. Wasn't this a lesson learned during the
bomb? Getting to market faster is not a competitive advantage.
***

I disagree with your point. If getting to market faster means spending less time on development, there is a measurable savings in development costs. All things being equal, if it takes five developers three weeks instead of four to finish a project, a significant chunk of money is saved. Producing products for less money at a faster rate is a competitive advantage.

***
- Keeping Your Application Development and Deployment Expenses Down
"Macromedia MX solutions easily integrate into your IT environment,
allowing you to leverage existing software assets. Macromedia MX
applications also help maximize your IT infrastructure investment by
reducing bandwidth usage and server load."

This is tech marketing speak. They don't easily integrate into my
environment if I have a staff of hand coders who don't want to use MM
products, and we have J2EE backend folks using WebSphere or some
other product.
***

It's not just tech marketing speak, it's true. Flash is a few percentage points away from being ubiquitous. It's already integrated.  ColdFusion MX can run stand alone on several different OS's, including Mac OS X, and it can ride on top of J2EE servers, including WebSphere. The level of integration is actually quite impressive and complete.

***
 "Using the Macromedia MX family of products, deployment time at
Emerils.com has been reduced from 15-18 days to just five days,"
enthuses the Emerils developer team.
See how Emerils.com took advantage of Rich Internet Applications to
reduce developer costs while improving user experience.
***

Emerils.com is a poor example of a RIA, in fact, it's NOT an RIA by my definition. It's perhaps an example of quick navigation, but that's about it.

I've seen better examples, and unfortunately I can't quickly think of others. I'm sure others on thelist have seen good ones. I think the Macromedia Exchange is pretty sharp, but it's certainly not the best.

*** 
"for IT organizations by:"

- Reducing IT Infrastructure Costs
Macromedia MX reduces your bandwidth usage and server load by moving
processing to the client-resulting in fewer server requests and
compressed data transfers.

Sure, this might be true - don't know how much money you would really
save. But you are transferring that one time (so they say) minimum
load to the user. Do they want to wait? Maybe..maybe not. Based on
what I saw with version 1 of Macromedia.com the answer is a
resounding NO, and it *wasn't* one load, it was over and over and
over...
***

Bandwidth costs x amount. It's very easy to measure. If you can reduce that cost by reducing page loads, and only loading content that needs to load, you save hard cash. Pure and simple. E*Trade used to have a stock quotes widget that took a ticker symbol, then returned it's current price. Without having the entire page reload, the user was given results. On a site like E*Trade, I'm sure the cost savings were significant. On a site that gets five people a day, I'm sure it's of no concern.

Macromedia implemented their own tools poorly on Beta 1. There were far too many reloads. A better example of only loading what's needed when it's needed can be seen on Joshua Davis' navigation/site framework prototype:

(watch the wrap)
http://www.joshuadavis.com/portfolio_web/web_2002/drag%20and%20drop%20-%20prototype/bpr/

You'll notice a frameset, and possible page reloads, but that's merely for the bottom half of the page. The meat is in the above half, and it's where the true savings can be had.

***
- Streamlining Development
Macromedia MX helps you maximize the productivity of all your
developers-from novice to expert-through approachable tools,
pre-built templates and components, and rapid server- and client-side
scripting languages.

Blah blah blah my tools are better than yours blah blah blah.
Marketing not quantifiable.
***

Two responses to this one: I like the simplicity of things like Homesite and ColdFusion Studio. I'd like the same kind of simplicity for Flash as well. My general feeling is that Macromedia MX tools are *not* the easiest to figure out. Sure their interfaces share the same common theme. But there's a lot running under the hoods of all the MX design tools.

But as far as components and templates go, it's true. There are a lot. The design tools are highly extensible, and people have put a lot of effort into building reusable design components. On the server side, there are thousands of custom tags, apps, functions, and components that can be downloaded and used, speeding development up. Are they always exactly what you need? Not always, but sometimes. Not having to write code that's already written is a productivity booster. Using clever time savers in your design tools is a productivity booster.

***
- Supporting Industry Standards
Macromedia MX solutions provide native support for leading Internet
industry standards, reducing your business and development risks.

They must be joking... Sure they are trying and succeeding to a
point. But based on what we saw with the beta and what problems still
exist... this is hardly true.
***

How must they be joking? Is XML not a standard? CSS? XHTML? CFMX running on top of J2EE? What's not standard about these things? I'm not sure how the beta turns their support for standards into a joke.

***
"For users"

- Reducing Frustration Through an Interactive and Real-Time User
Experience
Macromedia MX rich-client applications reduce user dissatisfaction by
offering both increased interactivity and instant feedback.

Again based on their beta this seemed to be the opposite. There was
lots of user dissatifcation, and they removed much of that
functionality for beta2.
***

I've seen countless bad Flash and CF apps that make this laughable. But, I've seen plenty of good Flash and CF apps that support it as well. The bad outweigh the good, but I'd be willing to wager that in several years they'll be able to make a better claim on this one.

***
- Shortening the Learning Curve for New and Novice Users
Macromedia MX solutions offer a desktop-software level of
interactivity that translates complex data and business processes
into accessible applications for a wide range of users.

I really don't know about this. All I know was beta1 had a steep
curve and was difficult for even web developers to use.
***

I'm trying to understand why you're assuming that the Macromedia beta site represents all things Macromedia. The logic doesn't sit well with me. So if their user interface is bad, automatically JRun sucks? The learning curve their referring to is not their beta site, it's their products.

Granted, their in the business of developing good software with low learning curves, but it's a bit unfair to judge all of their software based on a beta site.

Now, the real question: is this statement true when directed at their software? Depends on the package if you ask me. ColdFusion, for a very powerful web scripting language, is very easy to pick up when compared to other web scripting languages. But I think it stops there. I don't think their design apps have a short learning curve. Sure it's easy to throw together a Flash animation, but to throw together a RIA with Flash is a different story.

***
-Saving Time With a Single Screen Interface
Rich Internet Applications reduce multiple steps into a single screen
interface, eliminating multiple page loads while offering users a
single application view.

But it loaded every time! It didn't always work right. It too *too
long*.
***

Again, the beta site is not THE ONE to look to when it comes to RIA.

***
This seems to me a lot of marketing speak, a lot of "buy our product"
type thing and a lot of hype. Where is the REAL benefit to me the
developer? Why should I push for this at my company? I don't see much
reason.

If this were such a great technology, wouldn't it be in use all over
the web? Or at least in some new significant places? The "pet store"
example was somewhat interesting, but nothing like that really exists
on the web - which seems to me so true of all these pitches. Nice
demos, no real reality.
***

The real measurable benefit from RIAs can come from cost savings. If developed and implemented correctly, real cash can be saved. Whether or not an RIA can increase revenue directly or indirectly is another question.

I think RIAs are still a thing of the future. Their day will come, whether Macromedia brings them to us or not, they will be prevalent. When and how is yet to be seen.

I trust Macromedia to do a few things for me, and to do them well: develop tools based on standards that I can use to be creative and productive. I don't trust Macromedia to develop the best examples of what their products can do. It is nearly always the case that those who make the platform aren't the ones pushing the platform to it's limits and taking advantage of it's highest potential.

Michael Buffington
http://www.michaelbuffington.com