Talk:Adobe AIR

Examples

Would it make sense to have an example of programs built on this plaform? http://www.pandora.com/desktop 65.209.67.124 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleonasm

The title Adobe AIR is a pleonasm. Adobe Adobe Integrated Runtime. The title should be Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR).

Agreed, requesting that this page be moved. (I'm sure that it will be known as Adobe Air, but this is incorrect) --jazzle 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This product lacks claim to notability so is susceptable to speedy deletion. Also product does not seem to exist yet and there is no independent press coverage. In summary, these would all improve the article, possibly even above the deletion threshold. Stephen B Streater 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective - I think a few months may have added some nuance to the above. There are several O'Reilly books out for the technology. Though AIR is a product in development, it is slated to become a much bigger phenomenon within a year. Adobe has poured $100 million into this, they're not going to let it just die. If this article is not already relevant, it certainly will become so James Dowdell 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product now definitely exists. Should we clean up the discussion page? Martin Packer (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change and Notabillity

There is an existing alpha for the runtime on the labs site And Apollo is now called air According to http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/air/ and http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/10/adobe-apollo-launches-beta-now-called-adobe-air/ So I have made a few Necessary adjustments although a new picture is needed.

What is Apollo

wait... the following paragraph is copied from adobe labs... can you do that?

Adobe® AIR™, formerly code-named Apollo, is a cross-operating system runtime that allows developers to use their existing web development skills to build and deploy rich Internet applications to the desktop.

Jamil d 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with a better description of what this runtime is or does. From what I understand, it seems like a widget hosting engine on steriods. Is is near to being accurate? --soum (0_o) 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this video was pretty useful in explaining what Apollo is/does in layman's terms. The speaker's jokes are pretty weak, but it's a cool product, nonetheless. The freddinator 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--202.68.161.58 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)It seems innapropriate to speculate on "what it is exactly" before its officially launched. From a top level point of view its a convergence toolset to take RIA's to the desktop and back again. A Flash/Flex "Widget" Toolset that creates an "Internet Experience for a user on their local machine." I will have more information directly from Adobe in a couple of days and will add more information to the document if I am able.[reply]

Sure, but please keepout marketing speak like "taking RIA's to the desktop and back again" out and add technical description, and if possible an API overview (but take care it does not become a how to). --soum (0_o) 07:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--202.68.161.58 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Yeah - I'm not an "Adobe whore" or an adobe employee so there won't be a sales pitch, but I have some involvement coming up with the technology. My understanding of the system is that its little more than a Adobe Flex extension and the difference between the two is largely insignificant.[reply]

In that case, I am waiting for your edits. I fail to understand the need for a client side runtime (when they already have Flash installed on almost all systems on this planet) and what can it do that is not available with Flash, that too at a time when major browsers are gearing for better offline support, and we already have so many widget runtimes. --soum (0_o) 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

Whats the icon for this? The one with AIR written on it? Or the one with the arrow? The site shows the former, but the installer still has the arrow icon. --soum ^talk 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official icon, as stated by the website, is the one with AIR written on it... so I am assuming it is that one. And... if someone could get a better logo screenshot... mine isn't so great. jamil_d 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save as PNG, not JPG. I will be fixing it. --soum ^talk 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website icon is not of very high quality. So this is the best we can have for now. I will try to get it vectorized. --soum ^talk 08:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Digg contest winner is actually just a flash file, not a AIR file 58.35.149.76 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

This section seems to be becoming a bit of a directory. I've removed some of the worst, but the others could still use some review. Please could people remember that Wikipedia is not a directory or a portal. We have guidelines about what sort of links are appropriate. We should only be putting in a few of the best. Please consider adding verifiable content to the article rather than listing external links. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the codeapollo.com link again. This is a forum site - forums are considered inappropriate. If there is exceptional reason why it should be included please post reasons here and gain a consensus before re-adding. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe AIR?

Adobe AIR = Adobe Adobe Integrated Runtime. That’s stupid. I’ll ask an admid to move this aricle. --KAMiKAZOW 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Adobe uses both "Adobe AIR" and "Adobe Integrated Runtime." What next, move the "Flat Earth Society" article to "Round Earth Society" because Flat Earth = stupid? —Tokek 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competition with Silverlight

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion in the article that AIR doesn't compete with Silverlight. WPF/E enables offline applications. Also, the Silverlight article has a sourced statement saying Silerlight competes with JavaFX. There are sources comparing AIR to WPF, however. (E.g., [1] ) Perhaps this statement should be changed to list WPF as competition, with a shorter aside about Silverlight when a source is found. --joeOnSunset 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlight does not enable offline applications the way AIR does. Not anymore than IE userData does. True, Silverlight isostorage does give persistent local storage capability, but it is limited to 1 MB per URL. So, it is more like a scractpad that local mirror. Neither does it include sync capabilities. --soum ^talk 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But doesn't this have more to do with how the product is positioned in the marketplace than its actual capabilities anyway? "Competitors" don't have to provide the same things. They only have to be positioned similarly, in such a way that the success of one might detract from the other, right? Or, better than that, for our purposes, they need to have some weighty sources that say they are or are not competitors. :-) --joeOnSunset 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backward compatibility?

I was looking around digg's api contest and started some Adobe AIR packages. AIR said that the version of AIR used for the packages is no longer supported. Where did backward compatibility go?

Try Mini Digg

Competition With Google Gears?

AIR and Google Gears are very different products. Google gears allows online applications to be cashed and run in a browser without a connection to the internet. It essentially makes web applications available off line. AIR is used to create normal desktop applications using technologies that have been traditionally used for the internet. It essentially makes normal applications. In this aspect, it's more comparable Microsoft .Net or Java.Jdhenry 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC iplayer

there are rumors that the bbc will use AIR as a cross platform platform for the iplayer if i can source this, can somebody word it better for the page?--77.99.171.94 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style

The "Overview" is a bit hard to read. The differences between each deployment paradigm provides both advantages and disadvantages over both. and that chain of howevers - could use some rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.20.85 (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full of tech-speak and obfuscating clauses

I tried a couple of edits of the overview paragraph: I don't know enough about what it is supposed to be saying to confidently offer a badly needed edit.

Wikipedia is designed to be a general purpose encyclopedia. As such articles need to explain the special technical language that is necessary, rewriting the techspeak into normal language so that a reasonably intelligent person off the street could understand at least the basic idea. My experience with this article is that it reads like a foreign language. Many, perhaps most, of the terms used are apparently special industry argot. As such, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia (even if Wikipedia is still in the "only used by geeks" phase).

I wouldn't expect to pull up a Wikipedia article about the Canada Goose and be assaulted with technical argot about exactly which type of migratory behavior it follows, or discussions about genetic/evolutionary markers in the "overview" of the article.

Likewise, I wouldn't expect to pull up an article about "Beowulf" and immediately get thrown into a sea of argot used by rhetorical critics and linguists about which linguistic characteristics would be most salient in situating the presumed original oral traditions within the whole of medieval or pre-medieval Indo-European language groups. This all might be useful and entirely interesting as a section within the article, but not as an "overview" (the "introduction" is entirely useless to a non-tech argot speaker).

Just as it would be inappropriate for an article on "hangnails" to begin with specialized dermatologist/reconstructive surgery descriptions (especially several different argot terms linked together), the reader deserves an introduction and overview that would provide a reasonable adult reader with some idea of what the topic is all about.

Some examples:

"AIR is intended to be a very versatile runtime environment,"

is "very" needed? just what specifically is "a runtime environment"? Is "runtime" used here in the same sense as a "runtime" version of a spreadsheet or database program (i.e., it will work with the specific instance of the one program as distributed, but cannot be used with another instance of a program)? I can run the specific application that was created with the accompanying runtime version of a program, but I cannot use that "runtime" version to modify or to create a new application. (Is that understanding of "runtime" inaccurate?)

How does this differ from what Adobe offers now? "versatile" compared to what? Is this a required component of other Adobe products (such as Flash, and the (apparently) new Media Center?

"as it allows existing Flash or HTML and JavaScript code to be re-used to construct a more traditional desktop-like program."

just where is this "code" located? Does it retain this code on the user's side, or is it running somewhere else? Will it allow all HTML code to be reused? If so, how could it possibly keep track of which code belongs where, without tying up system resources (assuming it is running on the users' side) or presenting a security risk (running what used to be local HTML on a machine somewhere else)?

Does this mean that some HTML code stored somewhere else on my computer (or perhaps running in another application) will be subject to "snooping" by this code? I understand what "a more traditional desktop-like program" looks like; I don't understand how a media player-type program (as in other Adobe products) is going to do anything but use the code that is provided to it within the specific file or code to be played.

"Adobe positions it more so as a browserless runtime for rich internet applications (RIAs) that can be deployed onto the desktop, rather than a fully-fledged application framework. "

"positions" is a marketing/promotion concept that has little utility for a general encyclopedic article, unless this "positioning" is itself the point of discussion. "more so as a" (flabby prose)

"The differences between each deployment paradigm provides both advantages and disadvantages over both."

This is one of those sentences that betrays this copy: "Each has its advantages"

These are just the first few sentences of this "overview." Not only is the prose bloated and riddled with "full stop" technical phrases offering few apparent advantages over ordinary words, but the entire POV is suspect.

Just a couple of examples: "this provides unlimited local storage and file access" My (obviously limited) understanding is that currently my browser supplies the limits to what code within that browser might do. For example, the code located within my browser does nothing to my computer when the browser itself is turned off. It sounds as if this code might continue to do its thing even after I might uninstall the browser! After all, it is "browserless".

"Unlimited" means "without limits", right? If so, then AIR is going to be snooping around my entire "local storage and file access" system? And just why should I agree to that? If the great advantage of this codee is that it moves its heavy lifting from the server side to my own computer, doesn't that mean an increased load on my poor already stressed computer? So who reaps this "advantage" and at what cost?

"For example a rich internet application deployed in a browser does not require installation, while one deployed with AIR requires the application be packaged, digitally signed, and installed to the users local file system. However, this provides unlimited local storage and file system access, while browser deployed applications are limited by how much the browser restricts where data is usually periodically deleted.[5] However, in most cases, rich internet applications store users' data on their own servers, but the ability to consume and work with data on a user's local file system allows for greater flexibility when an application is working offline.

My two tries at rewrites failed--even I could see that what I came up with didn't make sense. But please, someone who understands what this code does, please give an overview that I can understand. (A clear introduction wouldn't hurt, either).

Now for a clearly better example--this from the beginning of the Wikipedia article on Adobe Flash:

"Adobe Flash - previously called Shockwave Flash and Macromedia Flash - is a set of multimedia technologies developed and distributed by Adobe Systems and earlier by Macromedia. Since its introduction in 1996, Flash technology has become a popular method for adding animation and interactivity to web pages; Flash is commonly used to create animation, advertisements, various web page components, to integrate video into web pages, and more recently, to develop rich Internet applications."

This could probably be tightened up a bit, but a reasonably intelligent adult reader can tell what this program does: it adds "animation and interactivity to web pages; Flash is commonly used to create animation, advertisements, various web page components, to integrate video into web pages, and more recently, to develop rich Internet applications."

Not so hard to someone who knows the product, I suspect. (although this intro puts another question before this new product: If the existing Adobe Flash develops rich Internet applications (no RIA, here--should there be?) just what does the new kid in town offer (other than snooping around my other files to see what it might like to display some time?)

Vagabundus (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. I'm growing very tired of these industry 'wankspeak' articles which, frankly, I think abuse Wikipedia's intent and purpose. They certainly do not 'increaseth knowledge', if anything they increase confusion. 218.185.19.242 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIR 1.5

Someone who knows what they're talking about please write a section on 1.5, now it's out. I note it HAS been noted as the latest release in the infobox. Martin Packer (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article reads like PR marketing for Adobe AIR

Could someone please re-write this, with a critical and generalist eye? Wikipedia is not a marketing tool for companies. Thank you.