Tweetdeck just keeps getting better imho as an AIR app, it's got a very desktop feel that I don't think a web interface could reproduce. I haven't used Chrome, maybe I'm wrong and its javascript support could handle this, but the new Tweetdeck lets me sort friends by typing in their names and it does autocomplete. I have 4k people I'm following and it handles it no problem. I think Firefox would grumble a little, pause, etc.

Those are my thoughts - I'm still real excited about life outside the browser. The browser is just one of many apps I use each day.

But there are other AIR applications such as Balsamiq (http://www.balsamiq.com) which provide convenience of working offline.

I hope this is not a debate between desktop vs web apps. Adobe AIR is meant for creating desktop applications and not just for 'providing web services to the desktop'.

I love TweetDeck, but I can't see that it has any features that couldn't easily be reproduced in a web application, and without the end user having to install a separate runtime environment in order to use it (ok, admittedly the Flash Player plugin is essentially a runtime environment, but far, far more ubiquitous).

It's not that AIR is bad, it just seems a bit redundant, especially in this case.

In the future, things like Gears and HTML5 will help make apps work offline...we're only just starting to see this come into play now. If offline access is the only need you have for desktop apps what will you think of AIR then once the web browser can provide the same?

So true for me.

That is, I have about 30 tabs open in Firefox at any given time -- I don't want TweetDeck to get lost in the shuffle.

And even if I didn't have that many tabs open (as I suspect many users don't), the browser is often just too much for those apps. When I'm using TweetDeck, for example, I just want TweetDeck. I don't need my bookmarks bar, I don't need my StumbleUpon plugin, I don't need my search bar, or the address bar, my Screengrab plugin, my Greasemonkey scripts, etc. I just want the app -- which is what TweetDeck on AIR gives me. I can run the app without all the fluff that the browser has (for browsing web pages).

Eventually, we might have a browser that lets you launch apps in their own stripped-down windows (Chrome does this, right?), that are skinnable for a more native feel, and come with offline support (Gears/HTML 5), Growl notifications, access to lower-level system resources, etc...

But, isn't that basically the same as AIR just delivered by the browser rather than a separate desktop plugin?

What AIR is for Flash is What Gears/Offline HTML5 is for Javascript.

But as an Flash/AIR developer, I see AIR has many advantages of being installed in a desktop. For example a task reminder app that sits on a system tray.... get the point...

If you want to see what a powerful in-browser twitter client looks like, take a peek at Twiggler: http://lmframework.com/page.php?id=vd_twig_short_1

This isn't self-promotion because we have no intention of releasing Twiggler, we just built it to demonstrate what could be achieved in the browser. If you watch the video until the end, there's a bonus: tweetdeck emulation mode!

Hope you like it.

D.

And i just dont like it. I am no guru in tech industry (learning and becoming one) and this is what i need. I powerful justification to say google's steps are right.

What really pissed me off is sometimes ago i read an article from highly respected site that covers about tech news about chrome and why the hell they dont like it and. I think i read that on engadget.

Please stop it. Google go go go.

And a speculative plus for AIR, if AIR gains traction in the mobile space, then any AIR app would have quite the competitive advantage with their apps crossing display (mobile/desktop) boundaries with a single rich implementation...

The big one, not really used by many apps, is drag-and-drop integration with the surrounding desktop environment, which would be great for photo-uploading if I didn't have integration plug-ins to my photo-library already.

Disadvantages - as someone notes, often far more CPU intensive than native equivalents, particularly on OS X (neither the OS X or Linux versions of Flash are well optimised).

As for whether desktop apps are passe - personally, I still buy and use them - I don't see any reason to use a web app for the sake of it (and that's why I have little interest in any web office suite - I have an office suite already, and a portable computer - I don't find I regularly need to edit documents from different machines - so besides 'newness' what does an online suite offer me?

I can only guess, but assume Apple and Microsoft will do everything and anything they can to spread FUD about the death of the desktop to maintain their profit margins, enforce their expensive operating systems.

I think a part of the problem is that a lot of the AIR apps that have been showcased are basically new interfaces to existing web applications, and so they don't make much sense. You could build most if not all of them as pure browser apps. Yet the potential for AIR apps I think lies in more complex applications, think more in the lines of a CRM, not yet another interface to send out tweets.

Regarding AIR apps being resource hogs (some commented this), it's valid point, however I don't think you can blame the platform 100% for this. At lot of it has to do with developers not understanding the need to optimize their applications. You can build resource hogs and memory bandits with C# also, but developers coming from that background are better educated on the need to optimize things and so resource hogs are less common. Adobe should probably do more work in educating developers on the need to optimize applications and if possible, provide API's to make this easier.

I simply don't understand why PeopleBrowsr does not get the press coverage. Seems deserving to me.

And, no, I do not work for them...nor do I have ANY financial interest in the company.

http://my.peoplebrowsr.com

Seems like a nice counter argument...

http://funkatron.com/site/comments/air-titanium-and-webos-10-things-you-cant-do-in-a-browser/

Before Firefox had an easy way to convert a website to an app, I had launched a bookmarklet - http://prismspectrum.com/bookmarklet/ -

Since then, Mozilla decided to provide Prism as a Firefox Extension - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6665 -

Then Google released Chrome (bad name) for Windows only with the same idea as Prism except it is more tightly integrated with the 'parent' web browser instead of installed desktop apps. That is to say.... Chrome tabs ARE separate processes and can be defined as desktop apps especially as they will cater to the powerful HTML 5 spec which includes offline data (ie. enhance/replace google gears) and a plethora of other features coming to the browser.

HTML 5 can be looked at as a threat to Adobe Air. At the same time, Adobe Air will grow to support HTML 5 as well.
But the evolution of Air continues to make less sense as the Web Browser itself becomes fully capable as running powerful web applications and allowing them to seamlessly become desktop applications.

The long debate between web, desktop, hybrid is winding down now in the only way it could... the realization that all of the above are the norm and the web browser is the application "chrome".

Furthermore, your article is a little misleading, because you're just rehashing the "Online vs. Desktop Application" debate that started a decade ago. If TweetDeck had been written in Java or C#, your article would hardly change at all. Not to defend AIR - it does have its problems, resource consumption being one of them- but let's recognize the real debate here: Are browser based applications easier to use than desktop based applications? And that's all about usability, not tech.

This is an over generalization and over simplification of web technology in general. You mention HTML5/Google Gears, but they are not without their own issues.

Why don't we rally against widgets on OSX, as well? See, we're back to picking and choosing generalizations and targeted niche applications.

You make it seem like the *niche* applications are the *ONLY* applications - remember there is a larger world around you, writing on "an authoritative blog" can generate the wrong kind of "authority" to become associated with.

If an application does not use any of the desktop APIs, then it could indeed run in a browser too. Here's a comparison:
http://www.adobe.com/products/air/comparison/

(Sarah, your profile here states that you write for Microsoft... is there compensation? If so, it would be good to clearly disclose on a piece like this, thanks.)

jd/adobe

The new 'recommendations' coming fall short as well. Read: http://tinyurl.com/boilingfrogs

AIR is a proper application framework and is suitable for building applications and laying out application components. It also has the most cross platform, cross browser reach of any comparable technology. You can only make your points because you really don't have any experience building complex applications with your HTML/CSS/JS stack, do you?

DW

It doesn't matter was something was intended for, the only thing that matters if it does the job.

-Local file system access
-Local embedded database (won't be an advantage for long)
-Cross platform support (writing web-apps for multiple browsers is a huge pain. Write it once for AIR and it runs on Mac, Windows, and Linux)
-Drawing API
-RTMFP support
-Dynamic sound generation
-Easy to use webcam/microphone APIs

Even without all these additional features, the fact is a lot of AIR applications COULD be written to run in the browser, but it's a whole lot easier for the developer to write them in AIR.

Sarah, what you are missing is that elements of AIR make some apps much easier to build outside of the browser. With Tweetdeck for example, it utilizes a local database stored on the computer rather than in the cloud, since this was easier for the one-man development team to implement (see this interview).

Another example is that AIR has additional capabilities for dealing with security and interpreting errors when communicating with a web server which Flash running in a browser is unable to do. When an AIR app talks to the Twitter API it gets much more information about the state of data going back and forth and what's wrong when something is wrong, than an 'equivalent' Flash implementation running in the browser.

These are limitations of the Flash plugin (or the browser, depending on how you want to look at it). Does that mean AIR is a better platform for the end user? No, not necessarily. Does it allow developers to build things that they might not otherwise build if they had to do it in-browser? Yes, quite possibly.

it can dock in the system tray, just like a real desktop application does.. receive both visual and audible notifications..displaying in a preview pop-up

This makes me remember a comparison between a salesman did when I asked about comparision between Blackberry & iPhone - Alerts/"Apps" in blackberry & entertainment in iPhone (just was being curious).

What AIR provides for me is relief from clutter. Apps that I run using AIR are ones that are important enough that I want to be able to easily be kept up to date on what they're telling me.. "..browsers that are skinnable for a more native feel, and come with offline support (Gears/HTML 5), Growl notifications, access to lower-level system resources, etc..."

I believe thats what provides AIR a great wayup then Browsers.

Lastly, Sarah, not everybody is using netbooks. And Chrome is not that good till now. I use Opera, have you tried it?

When I come to RWW, I want something helping in general not to read a Google Chrome "ad" or "lazzy boy" Adobe."

I think a few folks hit it on the head already. What I like about AIR is that it provides a solid application framework laying somewhere between the desktop and the web.

What holds back, and will always hold back, web browsers is that they still have to be web browsers. That is, they still have to render HTML/CSS markup, in addition to JavaScript and this and that and the other. Browsers are the Frankenstein's monster of development platforms.. AIR (and Flex/Flash) are clean application development platforms (when used correctly) that run circles around any browser-based RIA platform.

As for the "one you go chrome you never go back" idea.. I say different strokes for different folks. Firefox 3.5 is stellar if you don't load it down with plug-ins, I do, because I'm a web developer.. so I actually run Chrome and Firefox side-by-side. Chrome runs gmail, while Firefox does the 30+ tab heavy lifting.

I'm not a developer, so I don't really know what AIR's technical limitations or possibilities are.

But, there's a pretty big reason why I typically don't use AIR apps: My organization's enterprise security policy prevents it. I can't install AIR apps without jumping through interdepartmental hoops, which means I only request an install of something I absolutely know I need (such as Balsamiq Mockups...which is coming to the browser soon, too). And, if I don't have access to it on my work machine, then chances are I won't use it on my other devices, either.

I do appreciate that AIR apps are OS-agnostic, but I also agree that, unless AIR can evolve to address its system resource issues and find a way to deliver value in the coming age of browsers-are-the-new-OS, it probably is just a stop-gap solution.

For me though the key point which you don't address is the same reason widgets and single site browsers like Fluid are popular — people like something which does one thing well.

If they are good it is often simpler and easier to use a couple of special purpose mini-apps than to have something that does everything — that way MS Office lies.

Where AIR really shines, IMO, is in being able to create business applications that replace traditional desktop UIs for connecting to internal and external business systems. With Merapi and AIR you have no bounds, your app can perform the function of any traditional desktop app but leveraging the power of the web easily and with better UX.

I also find that some clients prefer AIR UI over the web browser. It's a single click to get up and running and they do not have to worry about the clutter of the web browser. They can have systray notifications, access to the app from the systray, and a number of other features you just cant do in a web browser (drag and drop from the desktop...)

There are any number of use cases for AIR that make sense. But just because you can build and AIR app doesn't mean you should.

As for the Chrome part of this article, I disagree. Sure Chrome starts up fast, I have often use Chrome when I need to look up something quickly before turning off my netbook, but it slows down as you use it. It often ends up using a lot of memory if you have lots of memory-intensive web apps or lots of flash videos open. Firefox tends to do this less.

Plus I disagree with the bookmarklet replacing add-ons. There are just too many useful extensions. Sure there are many useful ones that did replace some. And maybe one day Mozilla Jetpack will replace most extensions and be supported in Chrome, but for now, extensions are a must for me.

As for AIR, you can look from many perspectives:
--from the company who wants an app that's "in people's shit" it's very appealing. That is, an app that is resident that pops up and keeps your users "informed" of stuff related to your company... there's HUGE appeal to that. And a resident app (that doesn't have to be actively or visually open) can do that. (More about the user's interest later.)

--from the developer standpoint, it's attractive because you can do cool stuff very easily. Not only can you use all your Flash/AS3 skills... but you can do notices, native OS windows, read/write files, etc. Plus, the seamless install is a HUGE feature. (I suppose if you're doing an all web app then this is sort of a non issue.) But I think part of the attraction is the folks who grew up doing web only apps are now given a way to easily make desktop apps... and it's actually a pretty fun task.

--for the user there's actually not all that much. First, I think it's important to only use AIR where appropriate. If there's a way to do it all in the browser then it's silly to do an AIR app. Even if you just add a nominal desktop feature it may not be enough to warrant a desktop app. But... if you're talking about stuff you flat-out can't do in other tools, then AIR can be great. Balsamiq is a great example. The developer picked AIR because he knew he could create a killer app.

Finally, I like all this talk about what you "can" do with gears or chrome (which, come on--this doesn't even apply to the topic at hand). But, my point is that sure--you could do some crazy powerful app with Ajax or Gears or Flash or AIR. But notice what people are using... they're using Flash and AIR for certain things because it's the best tool for the job. You go ahead and make Balsamiq in Gears and report back how easy it was.

The application determines the tool for the job. If the AIR apps to which you're exposed don't offer much beyond what a Web app would provide, then you're right -- AIR maybe doesn't add much value for you. And maybe the work you do just doesn't require much more than a browser. That'd be fine, too.

But when you encounter a need for an application that a Web browser just can't handle (and there are far too many examples even to begin to enumerate them -- file-system access, local relational storage, etc., the list goes on), then you'll start to appreciate the work Adobe's done to make the process of building and deploying cross-platform desktop apps a lot easier than it was before AIR.

While reading the article and your responds to comments, I was thinking: Do you get paid by Google for advertising for Chrome? ;) Ok, you like that browser, I guess we got it. But when talking about a technology like AIR you should probably look more around and not just concentrate on Chrome and that three tools you know running with AIR.

I am currently writing my Bachelor Thesis about Flex and AIR and besides developing an application for indoor coverage planning of mobile communication networks. I bet something like this wouldn't run smoothly with full features in your beloved Chrome ;)

So the huuuuuuuuuuuuuge (sorry, for the extra u's but this is needed to make my point clear :) ) benefit of AIR is that a Web developer can leverage his/her existing skills and bring an application to the Desktop with just a modicum of effort!

So long.
Regards from Germany.

Yes, it's correct that AIR ir appropriate for some things and web for others. There may be some overlap. The argument is that people may be over-using AIR where the web would be a better option. TweetDeck is a good example. Even before seeing Seesmic Web, one wondered if TweetDeck would be better off in the browser. Sure enough, it is.

If you're app can really benefit from the unique benefits of AIR, then by all means use it. But be careful if you choose AIR just because it's neat or you're a Flash programmer. If there's any doubt, you're app is likely better in the browser.

Same thing goes for iPhone. We are seeing a lot of apps that would be better off as iPhone-optimized web sites. Google figured this out and is doing everything in the browser. Gmail is actually better, more usable and faster than the iPhone Mail app.

The application determines the tool for the job. If the AIR apps to which you're exposed don't offer much beyond what a Web app would provide, then you're right -- AIR maybe doesn't add much value for you. And maybe the work you do just doesn't require much more than a browser. That'd be fine, too.

But when you encounter a need for an application that a Web browser just can't handle (and there are far too many examples even to begin to enumerate them -- file-system access, local relational storage, etc., the list goes on), then you'll start to appreciate the work Adobe's done to make the process of building and deploying cross-platform desktop apps a lot easier than it was before AIR.

Where AIR really shines, IMO, is in being able to create business applications that replace traditional desktop UIs for connecting to internal and external business systems. With Merapi and AIR you have no bounds, your app can perform the function of any traditional desktop app but leveraging the power of the web easily and with better UX.

I also find that some clients prefer AIR UI over the web browser. It's a single click to get up and running and they do not have to worry about the clutter of the web browser. They can have systray notifications, access to the app from the systray, and a number of other features you just cant do in a web browser (drag and drop from the desktop...)

There are any number of use cases for AIR that make sense. But just because you can build and AIR app doesn't mean you should.

However, the world in which most people run apps from lightening quick browsers could be at least three years away for mainstream. In the meantime there is Air.

This also begs the more general question of cloud computing and its widespread adoption.