Are You Over AIR Applications?
When Adobe AIR was first released, we were in love. These glorious rich internet applications let us interact with web services outside our browser. In many ways, AIR apps were revolutionary. More complex than simple desktop widgets, these programs delivered the web to us in beautiful little packages. Almost immediately, we were updating Twitter, streaming video, reading feeds, editing photos, and so much more using various apps built for this new platform.
But recently, we've begun to question AIR's longevity. Now don't get us wrong - many of our favorite apps (TweetDeck, Tumbleweed, Yammer, etc.) are built using Adobe AIR. However, there's no reason why these apps couldn't just run in a browser instead...and that might even be a better place for them.
Twitter on AIR
When we think about AIR apps today, one of the top apps that comes to mind is TweetDeck, the multi-columned Twitter application which includes much sought-after features not built into Twitter.com's own web site such as groups, photo-sharing, and saved searches. Yet despite everything we love about TweetDeck, we wonder why it can't exist simply as an online application. What purpose does running TweetDeck in Adobe AIR serve? It's not AIR's cross-platform abilities - after all, web browsers are the original cross-platform apps -and it's not that AIR is notably faster than an online version either. Probably the only reason for TweetDeck on AIR is that when the app was first built, AIR was the hot new thing. Now that the company has settled on the platform, they're just sticking with it.
Yet on the flip side, another popular Twitter client and originally an AIR-only app has gone the other direction. TweetDeck competitor Seesmic, once solely an Adobe AIR desktop application, is now offering a web-based version. Not only is the online app more than functional, it's also being lauded as "the best Twitter browser interface yet." More importantly, it goes to show that you don't need a desktop application to have a speedy, pretty, and useful app.
Streaming Video: Yeah, We Can Do that Online
Outside of the Twittersphere, other AIR apps on our radar in the past have included video-streaming programs like Adobe Media Player, AOL Top 100 Videos, and the YouTube-streaming DeskTube. Incidentally, today DeskTube is launching a new beta of their application, claiming "performance improvements" that now make their player "netbook-ready."
This immediately got us thinking: why do we need netbook-ready AIR applications? Maybe I don't speak for everyone, but my netbook is currently running XP and the only "app" I've installed is Google Chrome. With this fast, lightweight web browser and its pop-out tabs, desktop apps all of sudden seem so passé.
Besides what does DeskTube do (or any of these video-streaming AIR apps for that matter) that the web cannot? In DeskTube's case, in addition to playing YouTube videos, it includes a search feature, top video lists, a built-in uploader, and it lets you share videos via Twitter and Facebook. All those things can be done via YouTube.com right now, so what's the benefit of AIR?
Is the Future RIAs or Just Better Browsers?
Adobe AIR launched back in February of 2008, a time when browsers seemed either hopelessly out-of-date (IE7) or bloated with a plethora of add-ons (Firefox). We saw these little internet apps that could sit on our desktop connecting us to web services as truly amazing creations. But then in September, Google launched their Chrome browser and nothing has been the same since.
At first, we railed against Chrome's lack of extensions and lack of support for RSS among other things, but after a while (and once we filled up our bookmark bar with add-on like bookmarklets), we got over it. Surprisingly, you can live quite well without loading down your browser with extensions. In fact, the only thing that Chrome desperately needs is a Mac version so our non-PC friends can dump the open-source Chromium and use the real thing.
You see, once you "go Chrome" it's hard to switch back. As much as we fear handing yet another bit of our online life to Google, Chrome is where it's at now. Firefox now seems heavy and so much slower than before. Instead, we're popping out tabs to watch sites like FriendFeed and Twitscoop update in real-time. We're switching from online mode to offline courtesy of Google Gears in our Gmail and Calendar. And we're wondering why on earth we need another AIR app.
Today, AIR almost seems like a stop-gap between the heavy web browsers of the past and the speedy WebKit-powered browsers of the future...browsers like Chrome and whatever else comes next.
ShareRelated Entries
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/12131
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Same for Silverlight??
Sarah, a thought provoking post for sure. I still like getting some things outside of my browser - like the Tweetdeck "you've got a new mssg" notifications, FriendFeed desktop alerts and the Snackr ticker. Look at Snackr, could that experience be reproduced in the browser? I don't know if it could or should. The down side of course is that all of these apps seem like they have memory hog issues.
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.
Did Chrome change your life so much?
What does Chrome has that Safari doesn't?
I don't understand what's the big deal on a lo-fi browser, that does the same as others. How did change everything???
Until there's a multi-account Web interface for Twitter a la Tweetdeck (or Seesmic Desktop pre-bloatware 0.4), I'm dependent on these AIR apps. Otherwise, I agree, it certainly hasn't lived up to the hype. Browsing the AIR app "store" is just sad. Google in particular and Mozilla to some degree are on the Web-app path (Prism, anyone?).
@Zohar: For you it's Safari, for me it's Chrome, but really it's WebKit. What changed is I ditched Firefox's bloat in exchange for crazy amounts of speed. And yes, it changed my life.
i stopped using Seesmic air twitter app because it took so much of my computers resources. I use tweetie now.
Posted by: Pokai
|
July 13, 2009 8:55 AM
@Charles B: Good point, I still use TweetDeck simply because there's no comparable online version...but there COULD be, and that just kills me.
I think this article has a very narrow perspective on Adobe AIR by citing examples of only AIR apps that provide web services such as twitter and youtube.
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'.
yup, over desktop apps in general pretty much
Posted by: sofarsoShawn
|
July 13, 2009 8:56 AM
I tweeted about this just the other day, and I thought the same when I saw the first eBay example AIR application, which was basically a Flash Player version of eBay with nearly the same functionality.
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.
@Prabhuram: There are tons of AIR apps out there, I can't write about each of them in this article. Balsamiq's great, but are you saying that it does something that can't be done in a web browser?
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?
I never quite understood the point of AIR in the first place. What does it offer that desktop applications do not?
Posted by: Rishabh Mishra (p248)
|
July 13, 2009 9:05 AM
'once you "go Chrome" it's hard to switch back'
So true for me.
Rishabh - It offers cross compatibility to make desktop applications across Mac, Windows and Linux using either web languages (html, javascript, css) or Flash
Posted by: Holden
|
July 13, 2009 9:06 AM
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.
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?
The problem is that I still have to find an AIR app that doesn't drain so many resources... RAM and CPU don't like AIR apps so much. On a Mac, there are much better native alternative for most apps (like Tweetie instead of Tweetdeck or Seesmic desktop).
Sarah, I agree wholeheartedly about moving away from AIR. I never really got into it because I already have a severe distaste for anything Adobe since all of their software (especially Reader) has become bloatware. However, the last part of your post reads a little like a Google Chrome ad. For me, Chrome has never seemed like anything special, and with the silly tab bar, I never kept it on my system for more than a few days. Firefox works well as long as you don't load it down with a bunch of add-ons. I think I have 3 installed, and it's never really been slow for me.
@Sarah What I meant was there is a good future for AIR apps and has its own benefits - http://www.adobe.com/products/air/comparison/
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...
Sarah, I couldn't agree more with your analysis.
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.
Finally i have someone who talked something nice about Chrome. People at Techrunch pretty much talking shit about Chrome lately especially when google decided to get into OS business (netbook specifically).
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.
Great discussion to initiate... I for one love Seesmic's desktop app, but loathe installing/updating on various computers... having a browser-based interface just makes more sense. And I love Chrome (and Firefox). But when I look at other screens such as the iPhone I have the opposite reaction - rich apps are preferable over their browser-based counterparts for various reasons (lack of offline data access being my big dealbreaker). So some apps are great in-browser and belong there, while others (Evernote is another) are great desktop apps.
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...
Advantages - separate apps vs tabs. Less of an advantage if you have something like Fluid or it's Firefox equivalent that offer the ability to turn any web page into a standalone app.
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?
Still don't understand obsession with local apps, never will. Modern browser+HTML5+gears makes them irrelevant, extinct ( and that applies to iPhones app store too ).
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.
Ugh, who did the Twitter/FB integration on this site. It's horrible. I keep okaying access from Tw/FB but my comments still fail to post.
The Facebook AIR app on my PC lasted about an hour before I noticed it taking up well over 100 megs of my RAM. The Craigslist app wasn't much better. I really like Tweetdeck's columns, but if I can figure out how to do the same thing in Seesmic web then I don't know why I'd need a web app for it.
Posted by: Bryan
|
July 13, 2009 10:17 AM
When it comes to TweetDeck I would rather have an AIR app so that I don't have to rely on having my browser open at all times. Sometimes I don't want to have the browser open but I still want to do whatever it is that the AIR App can do. Although AIR apps can be RAM hogs at times I still find them very handy.
The examples you pull out in this article are of applications that are heavily dependent on a network connection. In these case you have a point, they could just as well be built using browser technologies. However, in my opinion the real benefit of AIR atm. lies in it's offline capabilities, it's deeper integration with the underlying OS and the option it provides for developers with a webprogramming background (be it AS3 or JavaScript) to target the desktop.
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.
Wait a sec... for web based Twitter interface +++, why are we neglecting PeopleBrowsr? Seems highly competent (groups, multiple accounts, sent to Ping.fm, handles Facebook account too, etc.) to me. And, as far as I know, it's Adobe Air based. I'm using it currently. Though, I must say, I'm very interested in reviewing Seesmic's web based version now.
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
Funny, today Ed Finkler / @funkatron wrote a post on "AIR, Titanium and webOS: 10 Things You Can’t Do in A Browser"
Seems like a nice counter argument...
http://funkatron.com/site/comments/air-titanium-and-webos-10-things-you-cant-do-in-a-browser/
@Josh: A solution for you: Google Chrome. Pop out the tab. Hit F11. Bam! It's a full-screen standalone web app.
When Air came out, Mozilla also released a beta of Prism.
I was in favor of Prism and not into Air. I accepted Air as a useful solution, especially for developers who enjoy using Adobe products (i'm not one of them). It sort of filled a void and allowed for some functionality to be experimented with which is a good thing. But at the core, I believe that the web itself will suffice and Prism was the first example of leveraging a native web application as a desktop application in orded to gain such benefits as a separate OS process and offline capabilities.
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".
I'd be happy to use browser-based apps over AIR apps if they provided notifications like AIR and native apps offered. I'm also not a fan of having to install additional notifier apps to use with browser-based apps (Meebo, FriendFeed, etc).
Posted by: Cory
|
July 13, 2009 11:11 AM
Why shouldn't these just exist in the browser? Well, to be fair there's no reason they shouldn't - AIR is after all simply a complicated wrapper around the flash player, with additional features that any skilled developer can gracefully degrade for a web edition without even compromising the original codebase. In short, asking "Why can't AIR applications like TweetDeck exist in the browser" is silly- they can, (relatively) easily.
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.
I don't agree with this post. Particularly for me the lack of the same-origin restriction for AJAX request is more than enough reason for using AIR. I'd like to stress the fact that the web version of seesmic doesn't have the Facebook integration that the desktop version has.
I'd like to echo Michael's comment.
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.
"...there's no reason why these apps couldn't just run in a browser instead...."
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
At it's core though, browsers were intended to facilitate reading marked up text. HTML is a mark up language suitable for marking up text. It is a terrible language for defining application containers and really falls short of being suited for such things. Just because decent applications have been built on the HTML/CSS/JS stack do not mean it is well suited for applications.
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
@Michael Krotscheck: No, I don't think this is the same as desktop vs web apps debate. Some desktop apps need the power of a "real" computer behind them in order to work (think Photoshop, for example). But what AIR apps exist that do something that requires the AIR platform in order to run? What AIR apps exist that couldn't run just as well in a browser?
Yes, and flash was intended for web animations, not for desktop applications.
And Java was intended for settop applications, not for enterprise server applications
And Unix was intended for playing games on the PDP-11, not for running large web servers, or databases.
It doesn't matter was something was intended for, the only thing that matters if it does the job.
While you're probably right that a lot of AIR applications could exist in the browser, AIR does offer several things that can't be done in a browser:
-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.
Damn, Jake beat me to the punch.
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.
Sarah.. I didn't got time to read all those comments (which, imho are more accurate and interesting than the original article) but let me take you what RWW's previous posts as well some commentator' said
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."
Is this post for real?
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.
Thanks for the great insight, Sarah!
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.
Interesting piece Sarah. It is always good to cast a critical eye over the latest 'hot new thing' after it's cooled down a bit.
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.
Posted by: http://petef.org/wp/
|
July 14, 2009 3:01 AM
While I run AIR apps that I prefer to be outside of the browser, there really aren't publicly distributed apps that do anything you couldn't do in a browser.
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.
I think the whole idea of AIR wasn't that you couldn't run these apps in a browser. It's that you don't have to have each app take up an entire page. Plus it's the whole UI thing for me. Some AIR apps just looks beautiful.
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.
Posted by: civ2boss.myopenid.com
|
July 14, 2009 7:43 AM
I think there's some misunderstand on what a desktop app is. To suggest you just set chrome to full screen and you have a desktop app is amusingly wrong.
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.
Responding to a post like this is a bit like responding to a question such as, "So, do you think XML will replace Java?" It's like, um, where does one even begin? ;)
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.
Well, quite nice article. Though, I think you are really missing something there. Many people stated that already above me, but AIR is really not just about utilizing some Web services.
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.
1 2 Next