Joeflash’s Enigmacopaedia

Competition in the Commercial Flash Component Ecosystem

Posted in Business, Flex, Adobe, Frameworks, Components, Flash Platform Community by Joeflash on the October 17th, 2009

There has been some discussion recently as to whether FOSS competes with commercial component offerings, and whether Adobe is unfairly competing with its own developers. Well, the answer is maybe, and maybe. The confusion is partly due to a lack of definition as to what constitutes a commercial Flash component, which lies at the heart of the matter. In the case of Adobe unfairly competed with Grant Skinner, well… read on.

Whether FOSS constitutes competition with commercial components, it all depends on what type of commercial components we are talking about, which is the crux of the matter.

First, let’s define what is not a commercial component. Components developed under no license, or under a FOSS license is not commercial, whether they be pre-compiled SWC-type component, a component with sourcecode, or a component which is really just part of a larger open source library.

Types of Commercial Flash Platform Components

1. Amateur or ‘Throwaway’ Components:

A throwaway component is more of the “Monster Template” or what I derogatorily call “FlashKit”-style components. It’s more of a one-shot use component, often with an incomplete API, sometimes not very great encapsulation, little documentation, no support, and cheap. Great if you’re a beginner-to-intermediate developer and you need a quick fix, but not very useful otherwise. Most times these components should be released open source, if not due to their incompleteness, then because even if it is just a few bucks, often you’re just paying for some-dude’s-experiment. Commercial software needs to be up to certain standards IMO, or it should be free, and even then.

There is no question that FOSS and future Adobe framework offerings will compete with these kinds of components — but did you honestly think anyone would actually pay for them anyways? So they’re not really a factor.

Most of the controversy about competition, either from Adobe or from FOSS, is due to a confusion in the difference between what I call a “mid-level” and an “enterprise” component.

2. Mid-level Components:

A mid-level component, in my view, can be either a mashup widget, in that its innovation or rather uniqueness lies in doing something new in the realm of webservices or connectivity, like a Google Map widget. It is also common for mid-level components to be enhancements or extensions of existing Flex or Flash components, including some media players, because they enhance what an existing component architecture already does, or provides a better version of an existing Adobe or open source component.

There is a big difference between a throwaway and a mid-level component: mid-level components often have a well-crafted API, sound documentation with examples, sometimes even the source is included. And with some of the better companies, responsive help forums, and/or email support is present.

3. Enterprise-level Components

Cairngorm: There is No Spoon

Posted in Geekness, Flex, Frameworks, Cairngorm by Joeflash on the January 3rd, 2008

I saw a brilliant tongue-in-cheek quote the other day about Cairngorm:

Do not try to understand Cairngorm; that’s impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: There is no framework. Then you’ll see, that it is not Cairngorm that bends, it is only yourself.

If you don’t get the joke, clearly you’ve never used Cairngorm (or seen The Matrix).

ROTFL!! :)