Re: [wmlprogramming] Flash Lite Evaluation outcome
- Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>For sure it's asking for trouble:-)you are right. If Chris decides to go for it, I would be interested to
>But asking the FL enthusiasts seems like an easy bias test to perform.
>I'm also interested in knowing why, despite these findings, the FL
>enthusiasts are still enthusiastic.
hear their reaction. Anyway, I know that there are a bunch of FL
enthusiasts also on WMLProgramming, so maybe we can see some of that
enthusiasm develop here....
- Not sure "enthusiast" is the right term for my involvement with FL,
but I'll chime in.
FL holds a lot of potential. It certainly is starting where it's older
more mature Web brother started. It provides the best graphics
presentation layer out of any mobile runtime. Some may argue, SVG,
because it is open. But really, designers will flock to FL.
Technicallly, the runtime is immature, but gathering maturity at a
decent clip. I have been involved with Flash on devices since 2000,
when Macromedia first ported Flash 4 to the Pocket PC platform. At
that time I was an enthusiast because it was amazing to be able to
rapidly develop applications for a mobile platform using the same
toolset as I had used for years to develop desktop/Web content.
With that in mind, Flash Lite is not a simply just a port of a Flash
version to mobile devices. It is its own runtime. It is a separate
runtime completely. It shares the same toolset for authoring, but the
runtime is different. Desktop developers would/will need to spend some
time learning the mobile environment. However, that should be a
relatively quick learning curve compared to something like going from
This is Flash Lite's potential. It is a rapid development environment
and has a large pool of developers that with a little bit of time and
research could be up to speed and developing for mobile devices.
The flip of the coin is that mobile browser's are quickly coming up to
speed with their desktop brothers as well. Someone that knows Web
a version of their Web files to work on a mobile device browser (thus
the power of WURFL).
Nokia will continue to ship phones with Flash Lite, but I see other
OEMs and carriers leaning more towards browser based content to see if
user's will really start to use their handsets for mobile data. This
is the low risk option. And really Flash Lite and this option is not
apples to apples. Flash Lite is more suited for multimedia, including
games, applications, screensavers, then it is Web content.
Of course this is just my two cents, I could be completely wrong, but
what I am seeing is an adoption of Flash Lite by people like Nokia,
but then not really knowing what to use it for. Carriers on the other
hand like the idea because it is rich and engaging, but don't see
deploying content through it because users are thinking about just
doing what they do on their desktop, and using a mobile browser on
their handset. We're in the early phases, and so far I don't see a
winner emerging in any category.