digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Adobe Apollo Launched, So Go Build Something

techcrunch.com — Adobe just announced that it ’s much anticipated Apollo platform is now available for developers. The software developers kit can be downloaded at adobe.com/go/apollo.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • killerqueen, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2I think I will
    • digglets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Sorry about plane hijacking:

      From
      http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/apollo/
      (With direct links to download):

      "Apollo is the code name for a cross-operating system runtime being developed by Adobe that allows developers to leverage their existing web development skills (Flash, Flex, HTML, JavaScript, Ajax) to build and deploy rich Internet applications (RIAs) to the desktop.

      Apollo enables developers to create applications that combine the benefits of web applications – network and user connectivity, rich media content, ease of development, and broad reach – with the strengths of desktop applications – application interactions, local resource access, personal settings, powerful functionality, and rich interactive experiences."
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I'm not 100% on what this is. Is this a compiler of some sort? or is it an amalgam of Adobe products meshed into one kit? Can someone give me some insight?
    • NuPagady, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Apollo demo at DEMO 07 conference
      http://www.adobe.com/devnet/videos/apollo_demo07/index.html
    • lemz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I'm a little bit surprised by this Adobe tech. It seems to be going against the current flow of bringing applications to the web away from the desktop.

      This would be a very nice platform for cross-OS development. I wonder how well it would integrate with Flex.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"This would be a very nice platform for cross-OS development. I wonder how well it would integrate with Flex."

      It integrates great with Flex. It allows Flash/Flex/Javascript users to import classes which can let them make various system calls from within their script. For example, a flash user can import a class then use the new methods of that class to open native file dialogs, write to files on the HD, read files on the HD, etc.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"For example, a flash user can import a class then use the new methods of that class to open native file dialogs, write to files on the HD, read files on the HD, etc."

      Wow, sounds like a malware writers dream come true. Cross platform Banzai Buddy FTW.
    • surfing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Thanks for the link NuPagady, I was having trouble falling asleep until I watched that video.
    • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1digglets: We're on a plane?
    • alostpacket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Wow, sounds like a malware writers dream come true. Cross platform Banzai Buddy FTW."

      You're probably right but it's also a JS/ActionScript/Flex Delevoper's dream come true.

      Making it easier to quickly write small (or maybe not so small, who knows) desktop aps is a good thing (TM). But eventhough virus writers may like this, there isnt anything about this technology that makes it easier for them to spread than say java or any other tech for making desktop aps.
  • saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Use this to bypass compulsory registration:

    Email: sefdsdf@fg.cx
    Password: midi2cv
  • appletalk, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6Adobe's attempt to monopolize all technologies and specifications ?

    http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
    http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
    http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm

    Thanks, but I think I'll wait for an Open Source alternative for now.
    • white1827, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13J2EE
    • Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Wow, I think you ment to post this on Slashdot. Someone builds a tool that unifies disparity among technologies and your gut reaction is to shout "Monopoly!"... If you could see past your own zealotry for half a second, Adobe is trying to bring these techs together to give you an opportunity to do something new with them.





      Gimp sucks too.
    • eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3OpenLaszlo
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Open Laszlo can make cross platform applications that taken advantage of full local I/O with native file dialogs? Do you have a link to this?
    • uncle_jesse, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6There is one - it's called AJAX and Firefox 3 - cross-platform, internet-unaware, javascript/html based, and open source. The question will become, when will IE follow suit?
    • danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One OSS alternative is haXe ... ( http://haxe.org/projects ) . And yes, haXe does support native app I/O and OS dialogs using Screenweaver HX ( http://haxe.org/swhx ). I've been playing with haXe and Screenweaver HX recently and I think I'm going this route for some internet enabled desktop apps.

      quote:
      " Screenweaver HX is the best way to write haXe Desktop Applications. With SWHX, you create an application by using two layers :

      * the System layer : written in haXe and using the Neko API, you can access the local filesystem, databases, network sockets... You can also easily extend its capabilities by writing your own DLL.
      * the Flash layer : written in haXe or any other technology capable of producing SWF, you can use this layer to display the graphical interface, handle user interactions, play sound and video...

      You can communicate synchronously between theses two layers by using haXe Remoting, as we will explain in the tutorial.
      These two layers are both crossplatform and all you need is the SWHX Boot executable that is initializating the application. For additional information on SWHX’s inner workings, refer to the screenweaver.com pages. "
    • danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1edit: more info on Screenweaver HX is available here: http://screenweaver.com/about

      This looks like a powerful alternative for those looking to find an open source alternative for RIA / desktop apps.
  • bruceheavin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6A free video overview of Adobe Apollo with Adobe product manager Mike Chambers at: http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=378

    This is a lynda.com training tutorial that is completely free with no strings attached. Enjoy!
  • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Hell no. Did you read the EULA?
    • drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's prerelease software. They're covering their asses in case something bad happens. Adobe Labs software generally gets a new EULA with the official release.
    • thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank you, I hope those reading here will actually read the license and maybe even read the flash license.
  • Siriuskr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6From the FAQ

    Does Apollo support Linux

    Apollo 1.0 will not be available on Linux. We plan to release Linux support shortly after the 1.0. release.

    While we had originally planned to support Linux in the 1.0 timeframe, we have had to wait on the core Flash Player's support for Linux to be finalized.
    • smartssa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And there's still no 64bit flash...
    • mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5But... Support is finalized. They can't use that BS argument anymore.

      Yes, no 64-bit flash is ridiculous as well.
    • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Don't hold your breath... Adobe has a long history of making promises regarding Linux support that they don't intend on keeping. As Adobe becomes more an more irrelevant and eventually completely consumed by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, they will only have their choice of poor cross platform support to blame.
    • Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Apollo development started long before the Linux player was released.

      Feel free to hate Adobe for not loving linux enough and for being such a corporation, but:
      - They shipped a release quality flash 9 player for linux.
      - They open-sourced the scripting engine powering the newest player, which is BTW the fastest ecmascript engine to date, by a long shot.
  • fluidfoundation, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5messing around with this for an hour has given me a chubby.
  • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3GOD YESSSSSSSSS
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I don't know what your point was...but somehow I feel like I need a cigarette.
  • i208khonsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't understand why that application couldn't have been made over a web app. This kind of technology is 5 years too late
  • gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7If it is anything like their god-awful Acrobat *****, be afraid and run away.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What the hell are you jabbering about?
  • mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"run on Linux"

    Yeah, in 2010. I don't see Apollo amounting to anything substantial. It's a web browser replacement... completely unnecessary.
  • zaqintosh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Frankly I don't see this as the future of the web.

    As ubiquitous computing becomes more of a reality. More and more people will use entirely web-based rich applications like Google Writely and Spreadsheet and work on files stored on central servers. Essentially this will make most office suite style work a thin-client model. I don't think we need more crap shoved into "Documents And Settings" folder locally, and not have access to these documents when I use my computer at work versus at home versus my pda /cellphone versus laptop.

    Granted, applications like video editing tools which require enormous resources will remain desktop-only apps, but eventually the internet will catch-up.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think this will push internet apps further. It will allow even pure internet apps to function much faster.
    • drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'd rather not see every application under the sun move into the browser. If our daily applications must move away from being standalone on the desktop, we need a paradigm other than pages for them. I'm getting tired of hearing that Flash and AJAX "break my back button". Where are rich apps to go? It's time for something new.
    • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I disagree. No well established company will put their sensitive data on a site that hosts thousands of other businesses. It's too risky. That's why web 2.0 is a flash in the pan and web 3.0 will be the wave. Offline browsers and standalone web apps is the way to go.
  • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6 Oh boy! One more open/proprietary 'standard' that serves no purpose from Adobe and I can collect the whole set! Why don't they just make up their minds. Is it 'open' or not?

    The EULA is ridiculous, and when I open the first site that says 'you need this plugin' I'm gonna close it in a heartbeat.
  • m1th, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6a sample apollo application... http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/apollo/sample_apps/Fresh.air

    rename the air to zip... and all you'll get is bunch of files with the main app inside an .swf file.

    Sorry, but I call LAME!
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1how exactly is that lame? my only problem with that 'test file' is that it never goes past 'Loading......' with a little spinwheel effect.
    • Sidedish, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3you also can't copy paste rss feed links into it so you have to type them out

      that's just plain silly
    • m1th, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2point is, it's all just flash with a bunch of other minor resource files coated inside a zip file. It's hardly a ground breaking technology. It's like firebox add-ons but for flash.
    • drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6How dare they use existing technology that already works! Those jerks!
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"point is, it's all just flash with a bunch of other minor resource files coated inside a zip file. It's hardly a ground breaking technology. It's like firebox add-ons but for flash."

      Thank god you pointed that out. I mean seeing as how that's exactly what Adobe said it is, I never would have been able to figure it out if it wasn't for you.

      "Apollo is a cross-OS runtime that allows developers to leverage their existing web development skills (Flash, Flex, HTML, Ajax) to build and deploy desktop RIA’s. "

      That's the first ***** line on the main Apollo page on Adobe Labs' site.
    • Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4> It's hardly a ground breaking technology.

      Except for the part HTML containers can be created within the flash player. That means you can load a web page, then call some javascript in it from within flash, treat the rendering area as a bitmap, and apply blur filters, rotate it, zoom it, etc..

      (the only other "mainstream" technology that currently allows this would be WPF, as demo-ed by Vista's application switcher UI.)

      If you don't see how that's ground-breaking, you'll have to wait for the first apps that take advantage of it.
  • rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2want 3d photoshop way more.
  • nite23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What does this do that can't be done with java or flash?

    Web coding nowadays is a mess, incoherent mix of multiple languages and markups - what's the point in putting this mess on a desktop?
  • theshutterbug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4A web Browser was the best multi platform delivery tool and now we are again going away from the browser !!
  • contemptPro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Quite frankly all that Apollo does could be accomplished using another Adobe product, Director. If Apollo doesn't offer: 3D, hardware acceleration, CD/DVD playback (without installing the framework), grid computing (my company has developed a Boinc Xtra), or extensibility (xtras/plug-ins), then what is the purpose of installing one more thing just to run a limited application?
  • andywebb95, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Very nice!
  • danandjan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0My question is, can Apollo do more than what Java Web Start/JNLP has already done?
    I guess the selling point of Apollo is you can run web apps without the browser and have local file access. Well that my friends has already been done with JWS. Sure the java plug-in is a monster and has had its issues, but who knows, the Apollo plug-in can eventually get that way too. Perhaps Adobe may learn from other people's mistakes...
    • bdefrogg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh, so you get to replace your IE/Firefox/Opera/etc. browser with a Apollo runtime.... what's the difference, except that this runtime allows direct OS file access, which your friends at MS and Mozilla have been working so hard to protect against ever since a zillion web trojans appeared after IE started using ActiveX.

      ...cross-platform support? (but only on WinXP/Vista Home Premium and MacOSX 10.4.8 (not 10.4.7). Currently not on Win2K or Linux, others?) Should say "future cross-platform support possible maybe".



  • zachberry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You have to be connected to the internet to run rich internet applications. Imagine having an online application with an Apollo download available - you could use the same code to provide an online ubiquitous solution as well as an offline solution. I don't see why this is a bad thing! I'm really excited about the technology.
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@digglets

    "Sorry about plane hijacking"

    SO IT WAS YOU!!!!
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1window.runtime.trace causes the whole thing to bork for me...
  • rautox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow, they've recreated the seemingly impossible to recreate complexity of any given certain-to-crash java ... thingy (you know, the thingy's that could be easily created using a technology that wouldn't crash your desktop, browser whatever, but inexplicably weren't). Amazing, and not in anything resembling a good way.

    Can these be instantiated as apollo capsules? Will there be a lunar module framework? Aldrinscript? Moonlets?
  • keegan3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Pretty cool, I think that XUL is better and more powerful. It would be awesome if mozilla made it easier to develop desktop apps with it, the way that adobe is doing with Apollo. Mozilla allows you to develop add-ons but I think that standalones are way cooler.
    • Anonymous3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XULRunner is a great concept in theory, but I hate the effort it takes in trying to create something decent for it. Meanwhile, Songbird did something amazing with it - kudos to them.
    • keegan3d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah that is what I was trying to say, it would be awesome if Mozilla made it easier for people to develop standalone apps like Adobe is doing with Apollo.
  • blankartist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Introducing Java, now with Flash support! Or how about cross-platform .NET? I thought the whole point of open source tools like PHP was to allow developers to take back the keys. Now we'd be signing away to the new Adobe monopoly formerly known as Microsoft.

    Also, isn't this a gaping security hole? Somebody downloads a cute little app thinking they're importaning their iTunes library, when really vicious code just deletes it instead. At least with Java, most people don't trust it to install. But everybody trusts Flash files.
  • SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Looks... interesting...
  • slade95816, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's" is a contraction of "it is", not a possessive as it was meant in the explanation:
    "Adobe just announced that it’s much anticipated Apollo platform..."

    So, it should read:
    "Adobe just announced that its much anticipated Apollo platform..."
  • FaT32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I will be straight. Apollo is just another redundant crap!
    Next gen browsers will support offline Web Apps (Opera 10, Firefox 3)
  • dontsaymyname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ummm...Hello. Anyone remember the huge success that was Macromedia "Central?"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromedia_Central

    Exactly!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.