Adobe Releases Cross-Operating System Runtime

An anonymous reader writes to mention that Adobe released the first public version of their new cross-operating system runtime today nicknamed 'Apollo'. "The software relies on HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and Adobe Flex. The alpha version, which presently works on Windows and Macintosh, can be downloaded for free at http://www.adobe.com/go/apollo. Once the Apollo apps are created, users can launch them from their desktops, without using their browser or connecting online. An Apollo application can connect automatically to online data or services when an Internet connection is detected, with new components automatically downloaded and integrated. The user needs the Apollo runtime to run the apps, just as a Flash player is needed to run Flash animations."

Comments

Translation...

[davidbrit2]

"The software relies on HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and Adobe Flex."

Translation:

"It's slow."

Re:Translation...

[sammy baby]

Could be worse.

Could be Java.

Re:Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be even worse.

Could be .NET.

Re:Translation...

[Em Ellel]

Could be worse.

Could be Java.

actually, it sounds suspiciously like xul (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/) with some flash thrown in. mind you, i've not read the article or played with any of the apps so i'm just guessing wildly.

There is no Appolo, just XUL....;-)

What? No Duct Tape?

[shadowrat]

Surely an architecture like this can't function without duct tape.

Could be very useful

[brunes69]

Anyone who has ever had to make a cross platform GUI application that works identically on Linux, Mac, and Windows, can tell you what a nightmare it is. Even if you use a good cross platform toolkit like Qt or wxWidgets, the apps are still not *identical*. And you have to build them and test them for every platform. And you have to account for the myrid of possible library combinations the users my have installed. Etc etc.

This is why so many companies are embracing web applications - but web applications can't do it all. Some things you just *need* to do client side. This Apollo thing could be a really great way to do it.

And what may make it even more killer, would be the fact that you could perhapse share GUI code between your web applications and your client applications - so a user could run his UI over the web *OR* locally. Excellent.

I will definitely be taking a close look at this.

Re:Linux?

[Doctor Crumb]

"Apollo will work on Mac and Windows to begin with, Linux support to follow."

http://myblah-blah-tech.blogspot.com/2007/01/15-th ings-about-adobe-apollo.html

Re:Linux?

[thewils]

...and 64-bit support will be available shortly after Duke Nukem Forever is released.

Re:Two good reasons to stay far away

[Bat Country]

1. Definitions. "Software" means (a) (i) all of the contents of the files (provided either by electronic download, on physical media or any other method of distribution), disk(s), CD-ROM(s) or other media with which this agreement is provided; (ii) related explanatory written materials or files ("Documentation"); and (iii) fonts; and (b) upgrades, modified versions, updates, additions, and copies of the the foregoing, if any, licensed to you by Adobe (collectively, "Updates").

"Software" doesn't mean products that you've created using Apollo, this EULA is explicitly referring to the Windows runtime of Apollo.

This is the standard sort of CYA EULA put out by just about any company that releases a platform-specific runtime. Not saying that Adobe won't attempt to restrict creative use of the Apollo framework, just saying that this EULA does not mean what you think it means.

Caveat: IANAL.

The 1990's called...

[mustafap]

they want java back.

I beg to differ

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

The first reason, and the less sure one and more petty one, is that I feel that Adobe ruins all software over time. If you think carefully about this, and if you have sufficient experience with Adobe software, you will agree with me. The only project Adobe has not completely destroyed is Photoshop, and that is only because they move most cautiously with that product. If they screwed up Photoshop they would cease to exist yesterday.

Actually, I quite like the Adobe Creative Suite. Did you ever try the real Acrobat, i.e. the full version, not the reader? It's an amazing tool: You can do reviews of texts among a group of people, including mere mortals. They will intuitively know how to use it, it does what they want, and it works. Illustrator is even cooler. You can actually open a pdf and do with it whatever you like. Move text, change single letters, add stuff, copy elements, whatever. InDesign is the perfect print preprocessing tool. (I'm not in the printing business, but I've written a few large documents in (pdf)LaTeX (with lots of (pdf) figures) and the odd fancy one-page flyer). I'm managing my webpage in GoLive, although I will readily admit that this particular piece of the suite has its quirks. I got hooked up to the Creative Suite when I worked at an institution that had a licence. A few months ago, I actually purchased it for myself. I don't know of any other software package for document-handling out there that's this well-documented, easy to use yet powerful.

Now you're going to say: "Of course, it's because Adobe is the inventor of the stupid portable document format, so no wonder they know all the tricks." You know what? You're right. In fact, Adobe even changes the definitions of pdf with every new release of the reader. I don't care. PDFs are the only format for documents besides Microsofts moronic .doc Word format that normal people know of. I can't send dvi's or postscripts to publishers, not even to non-techie friends. Adobe has not only developed a nice toolbox, the also deliver the userbase with it, right to my door. It might be that their software uses quite a lot of memory and processing power, but it also actually does what I want it to do. That's more to me. I've got the CPU cycles to burn.

Re:I beg to differ

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I quite like the Adobe Creative Suite. Did you ever try the real Acrobat, i.e. the full version, not the reader? It's an amazing tool: You can do reviews of texts among a group of people, including mere mortals. They will intuitively know how to use it, it does what they want, and it works

The interesting thing is that there is basically no backwards compatibility of anything beyond basic document display. For example, we have a fill-in form created in Acrobat 8 Pro. If you open it and fill it out in an earlier version, it seems to be filled in fine. You can close it, reopen it, and view its contents. But then I mailed that file (yes, I'm sure it was the right one) to the purchasing department and when they opened it in Acrobat 8 Pro, it was not filled in.

Incidentally, I have Adobe CS2 on a powermac to my right and it has been filled with the least reliable software I've had come out of Adobe yet. Illustrator and Indesign regularly crash. Photoshop is just slower than ever before.

They've also broken many elements of usability. For example in illustrator, things snap to the point from which you drag, not from other edges. As such I am forced to do a lot of things in InDesign just to have them come out in a reasonable period of time; but now I have to jump back and forth between illustrator tweaking graphics, and indesign to put them in a document, instead of just doing it all in illustrator.

Not to mention general stupidity - I had to buy a $75 plugin for InDesign just to be able to define my own text boxes on master pages and have text flow through them, as opposed to one big master text frame for the whole layout. What? This is such an obvious feature. This is the only efficient way to autonumber tickets, for example; In my case I use it to make numbered backstage passes, and to make numbered coupons for in-house use (cheaper to just laser print than to have them printed.)

You can actually open a pdf and do with it whatever you like. Move text, change single letters, add stuff, copy elements, whatever.

Yes and no. You can't copy graphical elements out of the PDF; you need Illustrator for that. But Illustrator doesn't work with embedded fonts, so you have to load a PDF, print it with all fonts converted to outlines, and then import THAT. Why won't the PDF import in illustrator just use Acrobat to do the import if it's installed, so you can have full PDF display/import capability? Oh yeah, because Adobe is lame.

Also, a lot of the time I find that Acrobat has turned a line of text into several disjointed lines of text which happen to have the same vertical level on the page. Sometimes this happens in the middle of a word, sometimes between words, but it happens an awful lot. I think it will do it any time you change a font, but it happens randomly as well. This text is simply not reasonably editable in acrobat.

InDesign is the perfect print preprocessing tool. (I'm not in the printing business, but I've written a few large documents in (pdf)LaTeX (with lots of (pdf) figures) and the odd fancy one-page flyer).

InDesign does not have autonumbering of elements, such as figures. You must get a plugin for this. InDesign does not autoflow through multiple master text frames; you can't in fact have multiples. You need a plugin for this. InDesign is missing more obvious functionality than I can even describe in one comment.

Now you're going to say: "Of course, it's because Adobe is the inventor of the stupid portable document format, so no wonder they know all the tricks."

No, what I'm going to say is that it's particularly pathetic that even Adobe can't get PDF right, since they invented it. Although to be fair, it's actually a bastardization of PostScript, which they also invented. And for which they charge exorbitant licensing fees, or used to.

It might be that their software us

Re:Developers developers etc.

[Bastian]

Why would we need another java or flash?

Because those products are ancient. They've been on the market for literally years, about a decade (!!!) each. How can you possibly make money selling a software brand that old? Adobe and Flash are the Chia Pet and Hula Hoop of the industry. Blah.

TFA is very sparse on details what is so much better about apollo and why that can't be done with flash or java.

You would clearly make a terrible manager.

Re:Wrapper

[ZombieRoboNinja]

GIMP is great until you need to, say, draw a straight line. Then you get bounced around their website to a highly sarcastic tutorial that makes it sound like ANY moron should know their weird shift-clicking technique with no explanation. And then OSS people say it's unfair that they have a rep for not being "user-friendly." /rant

Re:Wrapper

[sabernet]

I must call shenanigans on this one. Photoshop's tools, especially the use of vector masks and blending effects, are damned handy in the graphics biz and is thought first thing in many graphics design courses. I used them myself quite often. I tried the Gimp. It ain't there yet. It's damned awesome for a free app. But:

"For professional graphic artists, I guess can see a need for Photoshop, but those are the extreme minority of users. Even some professionals could probably get by with only using GIMP"

Is like saying, "For professional cycle racers, I guess can see a need for sports bikes, but those are the extreme minority of bikers. Even some professionals could probably get by with only using a kid's BMX."

Currently, nothing holds a candle to PS.

Now, using it as an excuse to get away from Linux? Well with virtualization software as it is and Wine's ever increasing compatibility with it, I don't see PS as being a major reason(if I remember correctly, the movie Sinbad was done entirely with Linux stations running Wine for compatibility with PS).