4 ms·

Titanium: An AIR like Open Source app

22 points by bdfh42 18y ago

bdfh42 18y ago
Good Ajaxian write up here http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-breathing-air-for-the-open-web http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-breathing-...
subwindow 18y ago
God knows how they're going to make a business out of this. They raised 4.1M, so there's definitely an expectation of revenue. Adobe has more resources and a significant head start. My money is on AIR. (Full disclosure: I'm biased- Appcelerator recently laid off 3 of my good friends)
- utnick 18y ago
  they can make money the same way adobe makes money flex is currently free, soon to be open source I believe, they make money by selling you the IDE and tools to make development easier
  - subwindow 18y ago
    I really don't see how Appcelerator can provide a better IDE (and charge for it), seeing as how it is all written in Javascript. I can't think of any tools, short of some kind of WYSIWYG tool, which I don't think they have the resources to create. They already tried consulting, using their product with all of their clients. That has failed. I think they're banking on support, but haven't all successful support-backed open source companies started out as projects first, and THEN were turned into companies? Is it feasible to put the cart before the horse when trying to make money from an open source framework? (Adobe, Microsoft, et al can do this because they have massive amounts of money- far more than 4.1M) I'm not trying to bash them or be antagonistic- I honestly want to know how something like this can make money.
    - proee 18y ago
      agree... After watching their screencast I was asking myself those same questions. I don't see them making a dime, but maybe they have some trick cards to play.
rrhyne 18y ago
The install process kicks AIRs butt. The sample app tweetanium downloaded as a DMG. I dropped it in my apps folder, opened it, clicked the customary OSx "you got this from the internet", warning and boom I was twitting. Comepare this to AIR: •flash is required •specific flash version required •install air runtime •install air app •present REALLY scary warning to user (causes massive dropoffs in the installation process) •require 200-400$ cert from dev to make that warning 5% less scary.
- proee 18y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I've really wanted to jump on the "air" bandwagon but for the reasons you mentioned it's just too much of a risk. Why can't Adobe offer the developer the option to wrap an air application into a standalone piece of software? There was some work done by someone to do this and they created the "Shu Player" but Adobe cried foul. (http://shu-player.com/air-runtime-notice http://shu-player.com/air-runtime-notice) Can anyone explain why Adobe is so resistant to improving the distribution process for air applications?
  - iron_ball 18y ago
    I couldn't tell you about the runtime install, but the scare screens are because Adobe, like Macromedia before them, are EXTREMELY paranoid about security. They don't want someone downloading an AIR app, saying "this looks legit," and then it deletes C:/ or steals their identity or something. The "we have no idea who made this and have no reason to trust them" screen makes sense in that context. Of course, the exact same warnings apply to every single app anyone has ever downloaded off the internet, so I can't really agree with AIR's stance except in the purest abstract.
    - rrhyne 18y ago
      Exactly... why they feel the need to go so much further than Apple or even microsoft go with desktop apps is beyond me. The sandbox security restrictions are HUGE as it is and add days of programing time already, why halve our install base with scare tactics?
    - 18y ago
old-gregg 18y ago
Two questions: how is it different/better than Mozilla platform? And why is their demo app looks butt-ugly and doesn't resemble native desktop software at all? We've gone this route on a couple of projects: and running offline web pages inside of an embedded browser window is not a "rich desktop application" - it's a web site running off your hard drive, there is a big difference.
- bprater 18y ago
  I think the days of "native desktop" widgets are waning. One the web, there is no "standard" and people are getting used to it. I'm a fan of "native", don't get me wrong. But I'm seeing more of this every day.
drwh0 18y ago
yet-another "rich app platform" no one will ever use and no will ever care about
- ivey 18y ago
  The beauty of this is that end-users have no extra install path. They download an app, and use it. For the developer, it's a matter of taking the same skills that make rich web apps, and make them run client side.
zacharydanger 18y ago
No Linux client yet.
- justindz 18y ago
  And AIR Linux 64-bit can't use the keyring properly. If only I could get one of the shoes twitter clients to work out of the box.
bprater 18y ago
It's nice that they bundle the runtime. With fat hard-drives and blazing fast connections, it would be nice to put an end to the days where installing has been a serious headache for end-users.

22 points by bdfh42 18y ago

Good Ajaxian write up here http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-breathing-air-for-the-open-web http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-breathing-...

subwindow 18y ago

God knows how they're going to make a business out of this. They raised 4.1M, so there's definitely an expectation of revenue. Adobe has more resources and a significant head start. My money is on AIR. (Full disclosure: I'm biased- Appcelerator recently laid off 3 of my good friends)

utnick 18y ago
they can make money the same way adobe makes money flex is currently free, soon to be open source I believe, they make money by selling you the IDE and tools to make development easier
- subwindow 18y ago
  I really don't see how Appcelerator can provide a better IDE (and charge for it), seeing as how it is all written in Javascript. I can't think of any tools, short of some kind of WYSIWYG tool, which I don't think they have the resources to create. They already tried consulting, using their product with all of their clients. That has failed. I think they're banking on support, but haven't all successful support-backed open source companies started out as projects first, and THEN were turned into companies? Is it feasible to put the cart before the horse when trying to make money from an open source framework? (Adobe, Microsoft, et al can do this because they have massive amounts of money- far more than 4.1M) I'm not trying to bash them or be antagonistic- I honestly want to know how something like this can make money.
  - proee 18y ago
    agree... After watching their screencast I was asking myself those same questions. I don't see them making a dime, but maybe they have some trick cards to play.

rrhyne 18y ago

The install process kicks AIRs butt. The sample app tweetanium downloaded as a DMG. I dropped it in my apps folder, opened it, clicked the customary OSx "you got this from the internet", warning and boom I was twitting. Comepare this to AIR: •flash is required •specific flash version required •install air runtime •install air app •present REALLY scary warning to user (causes massive dropoffs in the installation process) •require 200-400$ cert from dev to make that warning 5% less scary.

proee 18y ago
I couldn't agree more. I've really wanted to jump on the "air" bandwagon but for the reasons you mentioned it's just too much of a risk. Why can't Adobe offer the developer the option to wrap an air application into a standalone piece of software? There was some work done by someone to do this and they created the "Shu Player" but Adobe cried foul. (http://shu-player.com/air-runtime-notice http://shu-player.com/air-runtime-notice) Can anyone explain why Adobe is so resistant to improving the distribution process for air applications?
- iron_ball 18y ago
  I couldn't tell you about the runtime install, but the scare screens are because Adobe, like Macromedia before them, are EXTREMELY paranoid about security. They don't want someone downloading an AIR app, saying "this looks legit," and then it deletes C:/ or steals their identity or something. The "we have no idea who made this and have no reason to trust them" screen makes sense in that context. Of course, the exact same warnings apply to every single app anyone has ever downloaded off the internet, so I can't really agree with AIR's stance except in the purest abstract.
  - rrhyne 18y ago
    Exactly... why they feel the need to go so much further than Apple or even microsoft go with desktop apps is beyond me. The sandbox security restrictions are HUGE as it is and add days of programing time already, why halve our install base with scare tactics?
  - 18y ago

old-gregg 18y ago

Two questions: how is it different/better than Mozilla platform? And why is their demo app looks butt-ugly and doesn't resemble native desktop software at all? We've gone this route on a couple of projects: and running offline web pages inside of an embedded browser window is not a "rich desktop application" - it's a web site running off your hard drive, there is a big difference.

bprater 18y ago
I think the days of "native desktop" widgets are waning. One the web, there is no "standard" and people are getting used to it. I'm a fan of "native", don't get me wrong. But I'm seeing more of this every day.

drwh0 18y ago

yet-another "rich app platform" no one will ever use and no will ever care about

ivey 18y ago
The beauty of this is that end-users have no extra install path. They download an app, and use it. For the developer, it's a matter of taking the same skills that make rich web apps, and make them run client side.

zacharydanger 18y ago

No Linux client yet.

justindz 18y ago
And AIR Linux 64-bit can't use the keyring properly. If only I could get one of the shoes twitter clients to work out of the box.

bprater 18y ago

It's nice that they bundle the runtime. With fat hard-drives and blazing fast connections, it would be nice to put an end to the days where installing has been a serious headache for end-users.