ricardocabellov5.5

Well....i think if you want to know if you have to download or not....you should probably first take a look at 'what is ' apollo first....:) ...ps: i give you a small hint : ' cross- runtime'

no probs Ricardo, but I bet a fiver that this time next year you'll be loving it ;-)

no, lol, it's a cross platform runtime ....meaning that u can now use your 'web' skills to develop Rich Desktop Appz and they'll run on Windows, Linux and Mac... using the Flex 2 framework...

I think Apollo is like a next-gen Macromedia Central. A lot of the same marketing pitches match the old Central pitches of ages ago. Maybe in this day the product will be more useful?

As a Flash developer, I like the idea of being able to use Flash to be a nice front-end for a program. Although, I also have some strong issues about the Flash engine and the failing points it has (speed, un-reliable frame-rates, etc...). I am curious to the performance of Apollo from a graphical standpoint.

I make a few Flash projectors and use Zinc v2 to wrap them up neatly (offering more features t00) so Apollo seems like an alternative to that. However, with Zinc I don't need to have my users install anything but the projector executable, which is nice. Again, performance is an issue as if you make an app that can scale full-screen, these days a 1920x1200 resolution hiuders the framerate of Flash.

With all that said, in the end it will all depend on how many useful apps are written for Apollo. If enough applications attract enough demographics then it will be a success. It ALWAYS comes down to applications. So Adobe has to convince developers to build some great stuff here.

I think with Apollo Adobe are laying the groundwork for some very grand plans. It's nothing new, there are other solutions, but as with all things computing, it's mostly about how well it is done, and how good they are at marketing.

It's definitely worth downloading if you are unsure, with the runtime installed it's amazing to see just how easy it is to install apps, the best part for me is that instead of having to think up new ways of getting people to come back and use a service (sending emails, asking them to bookmark), it lives there on there system, but can be updated easily like a web app, and to me that's a win-win situation. :)

I haven't looked into apollo but if it allows for consistency I would give it a try.

At the end, consistency is what is getting in our nerves as web developers!

I think the other commenters have answered your post adequately :) ...just wanted to throw in that, at least at my company (and probably others), the business is begging for this type of platform. Cross-platform, rich desktop applications connected (occasionally) to a server...all using existing development tools. I *hope* it doesn't go the way of Central, whose licensing model and development platform were a huge barrier. Central was ahead of its time and missed the mark by a bit, but from everything I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the case with Apollo.

Love your blog design, BTW!

Smart decision!

I haven't been able to do much with it yet, but probably I will be playing with it this weekend too.

I don't think Apollo will go the way of Central because of two main reason, at the very least:

1. Central was Flash-centric, and even though the Flash Player has great adoption rates, not everybody is a Flash developer. With Apollo, *almost* everybody that creates web applications can now develop for the desktop through Apollo.

2. Branding opportunities. The Macromedia branded shell that contained the runtime environment for Central apps was a deal breaker for many companies that were initially interested in the technology. With Apollo, Adobe has corrected that and even though you install '.air' files, apps are running apparently on their own.

These two, plus the different business model, etc. put Apollo at a better starting point.

Have fun!