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."

Translation...

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

Translation:

"It's slow."

Re:Translation...

Could be worse.

Could be Java.

Re:Translation...

Could be even worse.

Could be .NET.

Re:Translation...

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....;-)

Re:Translation...

Don't forget about this part:

13. Compliance with Licenses. If you are a business or organization, you agree that upon request from Adobe or Adobe's authorized representative*, you will within thirty (30) days fully document and certify that use of any and all Software at the time of the request is in conformity with your valid licenses from Adobe.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ [adobe.com]

* Ie, the BSA which Adobe is a member of [wikipedia.org].

This is one of the reasons I despise Flash. Hopefully someday Gnash will be a good replacement for it.

Re:Translation...

Hope that unlike the HTML/Javascript/CSS soup we have now, this technology is designed from the ground up with security in mind.

I find that most of the time, the security problems don't come from anything to do with HTML/CSS/Javascript, but have more to do with web programmers who don't understand the implications of putting a database driven application online for anybody in the world to use, when contrasted with an application that runs on your local computer. Take a simple application that stores a list of movies you own. If the user is running it locally on their own machine, there's much less to worry about in terms of security. The worst that could happen is the user may delete their own data. When you take this application and put in online, then there's a lot more stuff to worry about. Ensuring that a user's movie list remains private, Making sure there are no SQL injection attacks, and lots of other security related issues. Applications on the internet are less secure because there's a lot more to consider as far as security goes, and most people who program these web applications don't take the proper precautions.

Re:Translation...

Yes, slow....and....

Let's add the security concerns of javascript running natively (without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept, see Acrobat Reader for details). Anybody doubting this point, just remember that any bugs/weaknesses/flaws in this implementation of javascript will be limited to Appolo and similarly, those discovered to be fairly universal will also require Adobe to fix their own implementation (read: Adobe known for slow response time). For completeness, let's not forget that this will support Flash, adding yet another round of stumbling security concerns.

Also to consider, this is basically a browser app that only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else. This means, in Adobe's typical approach to evil, if anybody wants anything done/improved/added, Adobe is the central source of everything. Just like Acrobat, it's a completely closed "standard".

No Linux support, who are they kidding? Grow a pair and learn to program...Do they even realize they released a runtime that just rehashes existing technology, and it doesn't even run on as many platforms as it could already be used on? Carlos Mencia said it best, Deet Dee Dee!

Finally, why even re-invent the wheel? When Mozilla did it, it was in preparation to compete with IE, which makes sense. And Mozilla aimed at building a nice, large, open development platform that could continue to grow. Adobe does it, and their entire goal is to build something that will never grow very large? Anybody who can call this a good idea and hold a straight face while they do it...well, they've also got a bridge to sell ya'

java?

Is this supposed to replace Java or similiar technologies?

Re:java?

From the description it seems like an alternative Mozilla's XUL [wikipedia.org] except that it ties in Flash and probably opens up a way for a BSA audit (see my other post [slashdot.org]).

Wrapper

So in other words it's a wrapper for existing technologies? It could be useful I suppose, but I'm thinking it's being hyped up already by Adobe. Abstraction of the underlying technolgies is good in some cases, but I can just see the horrid things people will do with this. Flash alone is bad enough as it is the way it's often implemented.

Could be very useful

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:Wrapper

I will take notice of this technology (or wrapping of technologies) when Adobe gets their own cash-cows (Read Photoshop et al) run on this platform. That is perhaps the only way Linux is going to get these Adobe applications running natively. Going by the number of people who use "Photoshop" as a reason not to switch to Linux, I think this will be huge.

Re:Wrapper

People are just looking for an excuse not to use Linux, so they say Photoshop. Most home users don't need photoshop, probably haven't paid for it, and could do just as well with GIMP. 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. I don't think that having Photoshop on Linux would do anything to increase the number of people using linux. People who say they need photoshop are just looking for something to complain about.

Re:Wrapper

A lot of the time it is just the extream minority of users telling the rest of the people what to use. It looks different because it cascades into other areas and eventualy looks as if every one is doing it for different reasons.

People don't like change. I know women who stay in semi-abusive relationships because they are afraid of changing it (the most certaintly can). I remeber when working at resaurants as a kid, they would change the menue or recipies or even just how things were made (IE from scratch to seasining packet) every 3 or 4 years. Almost everyone in the kitchen fought it. After the change, they eventualy embrace it and fight against the next change using much of the same arguments as how good the current way is.

So yea, I would say your right. But bringing Photoshop over and having it look the same, work the same, or yahoo games look the same, or whatever, will remove some elements of this change. I think it would remove some of the barriers to change. I think more people qould be likely to change to linux.

A short note. A friend's computer blew the mainboard and she didn't have the money to replace it. I have/had (it is still mine but she has it now) a computer running mandrake that i wasn't using and it was about the same speed. I offered it to her until she got another one. Of course I have updated it to take advantage of new features and had to come over and fix things that didn't work that way she expected. But after about a year and a half, she got a new computer (actualy her dad bought it because he couldn't figure out how to make a few changes when he came over). Now, she tells me how much she hates using the other computer which is XP and faster. She cannot point out exactly what she doesn't like but tells me she ends up unpluging it and hooking the linux back up when she does what she cannot do in linux(some active X thing with school).

This isn't a testement on how much better linux is, It is a testement to how people dislike change. I belive the majority of people are this way.

Re:Wrapper

GIMP is great until you need to, say, draw a straight line. Then you get bounced around their website to a highly sarcastic tutorial [gimp.org] 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

People are just looking for an excuse not to use Linux, so they say Photoshop. Most home users don't need photoshop, probably haven't paid for it, and could do just as well with GIMP.

Home users have other choices than the GIMP.

Paint Shop Pro has been around since 1992. Street price $60.

Older versions, retail boxed, with a thick printed manual, can be found almost anywhere -- and are arguably the less painful choice than learning the GIMP UI.

The user isn't always as addicted to piracy as the Geek choses to believe, nor is all commercial software priced like Photoshop at retail list.

Re:Wrapper

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).

Write once, spam everywhere?

Hmm, why did I instantly think of cross-platform viruses/worms being early uses of this technology? Self-propagating flash-based avertising?

Re:Write once, spam everywhere?

"What evil can it be used for?"

"Can it run Linux?"

Isn't that a bit redundant?

What? No Duct Tape?

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

Developers developers etc.

Why would we need another java or flash? TFA is very sparse on details what is so much better about apollo and why that can't be done with flash or java. But their little project is doomed since people will tend to refuse downloading/installing new software unless the added value is clear. So unless they can generate a massive switchover from a lot of websites/developers to apollo, this technology is dead as a duck in the water.

Re:Developers developers etc.

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.

Linux?

Any Linux support on this one?

Re:Linux?

"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 [blogspot.com]

Re:Linux?

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

Security?

In a browser environment, the browser operates the app in a sandbox and controls access to the machine. Sure hope Adobe's runtime does the same (preferably with fewer security bugs).

Two good reasons to stay far away

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.

The other reason, however, and the one that I expect more support on, is the Apollo Runtime Licensing Agreement [adobe.com]. It contains such gems as "2.2 Distribution. You may not sublicense or distribute the Software.", "2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4." And then there's "2.4 No Modification. You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software.". Here's another fun one: "3.1 Prohibited Devices and Systems. You may not install or use the Software on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not install or use the Software on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP or Vista Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices."

Now consider Apollo in the context of actually using it; the only place you can install it is on a web server. The license does not even permit installation on a web server appliance! I am not making this up; you are prohibited from installing it on "internet appliances or other internet-connected devices". You cannot install the software on a PDA used as a webserver. You cannot use the software as the interface for a set-top box. You cannot, in fact, use the software anywhere other than a webserver (but not an appliance!) or pretty much anything running Windows XP (tablet PCs and media centers NOT running Windows XP are explicitly prohibited.)

Avoid this software at all costs! It's just an attempt by Adobe to create lock-in. Use ANY alternative.

Re:Two good reasons to stay far away

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.

I beg to differ

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

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

privacy concerns

When they say

An Apollo application can connect automatically to online data or services when an Internet connection is detected

my spyware paranoia starts acting up. I really don't want my applications calling home and checking for updates without my explicit permission! I don't think I'd trust an auto-updater from Adobe much more than I'd trust Microsoft's "Windows Update" utility.

Cross-operating systems...

Ah. Cross-operating systems.

Where's the OpenBSD version? Where's the DragonFlyBSD version?

Ria....gulp...a?

From the site:

Adobe said Apollo will make the development and use of rich Internet applications (RIAs) -- Web applications that have the interactivity of desktop apps -- quicker and easier. RIAs can offer more interactivity than is usually available via the Web. The San Jose, California company said upcoming versions of Apollo will run on Linux, integrate PDF, provide deeper Ajax support, extend support for mobile technologies, and enable media assets to be dragged and dropped directly into Apollo apps.

RIAs? So basically, you want me to not only have a wrapper agent on my system but also a network and system app layer that will have direct access to other remote like objects? Hmmm, gee, has anyone told Citrix this?

So this won't fly in an Corporate Enterprise environment and for home use...well, does anyone want mySpace resource hogging your whole system and not just your browser's use of your resources? Uhm, no thanks.

Launching without being online..

"Once the Apollo apps are created, users can launch them from their desktops, without using their browser or connecting online."

Sounds a lot like Microsoft's ClickOnce technology: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa49 7348.aspx [microsoft.com]

And Microsoft "auto-updates" Windows machines (whether or not you want them to, it would seem) to include the latest frameworks and such. Regardless, how does what Adobe does improve on what Microsoft (and I'm sure some F/OSS alternatives) already do?

is free or is not free? that is a question

"Adobe says that Apollo will be easier to use, easier to install, more leading edge, and a more reliable and consistent platform" for creating [Rich Internet Applications] than existing solutions, she [DiDio] said. She expected the Apollo runtime -- essentially, a player -- to be available for free in its final release.
...
A beta version of Apollo is expected this summer, with the first official release later this year. Prices were not announced.

I'm sure the player will be free, the SDK not so free.

I'm curious how much memory this thing's going to eat, and how annoying the upgrade prompts will be. If it integrates Acrobat, I wonder how many times I'll need to reinstall it each year in order to keep it from hanging.

Mozilla's XUL + JS

isn't the same thing? i remember playing with a thingie called XULPlayer, i loved it.

Let's See What Adobe Claims

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo [adobe.com]

Apollo is targeted at allowing web developers to build and deploy web applications to the desktop.

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

Which means, like maybe when a big-fish pays us for the port.

Then there's very-non-free License terms:
You may make a limited and reasonable number of copies of the SDK Components

The structure, organization and code of the SDK Components provided to you in compiled or object code form are the valuable trade secrets and confidential information of Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers.

may be expressly permitted to decompile...it is essential to do so in order to achieve interoperability with another software program, and you have first requested that Adobe provide the information necessary to achieve such interoperability and Adobe has not made such information available. Adobe has the right to impose reasonable conditions and to request a reasonable fee before providing such information.

What about the malware factory you are creating?
You shall not use the SDK Components to create, develop or use any program, software or service that (a) contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines

That'll stop em.

Director replacement

Sounds like a future replacement to Director and Shockwave to me.

Where have I heard of this before?

I wonder? Oh, yeah, ActiveX.

Erk?

What's the point? We have Mozilla's GRE (plus XUL), and Apache's whatever-they-call-it?

The 1990's called...

they want java back.

Re:The 1970's called...

They want Smalltalk back.

And they're welcome to it. B-)

That's Funny

They're running Linux. Netcraft confirms it: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=labs.ado be.com [netcraft.com]

Clearly the best tool for the job.

Now, when will the PHB's at Adobe get the message that the only best tools run on Linux natively?