

Titanium: An AIR like Open Source app - bdfh42
http://titaniumapp.com/

======
rrhyne
The install process kicks AIRs butt. The sample app tweetanium downloaded as a
DMG. I dropped it in my apps folder, opened it, clicked the customary OSx "you
got this from the internet", warning and boom I was twitting.

Comepare this to AIR: •flash is required •specific flash version required
•install air runtime •install air app •present REALLY scary warning to user
(causes massive dropoffs in the installation process) •require 200-400$ cert
from dev to make that warning 5% less scary.

~~~
proee
I couldn't agree more. I've really wanted to jump on the "air" bandwagon but
for the reasons you mentioned it's just too much of a risk. Why can't Adobe
offer the developer the option to wrap an air application into a standalone
piece of software? There was some work done by someone to do this and they
created the "Shu Player" but Adobe cried foul. (<http://shu-player.com/air-
runtime-notice>) Can anyone explain why Adobe is so resistant to improving the
distribution process for air applications?

~~~
iron_ball
I couldn't tell you about the runtime install, but the scare screens are
because Adobe, like Macromedia before them, are EXTREMELY paranoid about
security. They don't want someone downloading an AIR app, saying "this looks
legit," and then it deletes C:/ or steals their identity or something. The "we
have no idea who made this and have no reason to trust them" screen makes
sense in that context.

Of course, the exact same warnings apply to every single app anyone has ever
downloaded off the internet, so I can't really agree with AIR's stance except
in the purest abstract.

~~~
andrewf
That the users even know something is an AIR app is an indication as to how
broken that install process is. Compare with VB6 / Delphi / Qt / MFC - users
who aren't themselves developers never had a clue.

Just this week, the Paint.NET folks were blogging about not being able to move
to the latest version of Windows Installer because XP installs without SP3
won't have the runtime by default. For a downloadable application, extra
megabytes are a big blow and extra required steps from the user are an
absolute killer. Why would you take the upfront hit to people trying your
software?

Java and .NET are still far less prevalent in the apps-for-sale market than
they are in the inhouse-corporate market, and I think this is largely the
reason why.

------
bdfh42
Good Ajaxian write up here [http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-
breathing-...](http://ajaxian.com/archives/appcelerator-titanium-breathing-
air-for-the-open-web)

------
subwindow
God knows how they're going to make a business out of this. They raised 4.1M,
so there's definitely an expectation of revenue.

Adobe has more resources and a significant head start. My money is on AIR.

(Full disclosure: I'm biased- Appcelerator recently laid off 3 of my good
friends)

~~~
utnick
they can make money the same way adobe makes money

flex is currently free, soon to be open source I believe, they make money by
selling you the IDE and tools to make development easier

~~~
subwindow
I really don't see how Appcelerator can provide a better IDE (and charge for
it), seeing as how it is all written in Javascript.

I can't think of any tools, short of some kind of WYSIWYG tool, which I don't
think they have the resources to create.

They already tried consulting, using their product with all of their clients.
That has failed.

I think they're banking on support, but haven't all successful support-backed
open source companies started out as projects first, and THEN were turned into
companies? Is it feasible to put the cart before the horse when trying to make
money from an open source framework? (Adobe, Microsoft, et al can do this
because they have massive amounts of money- far more than 4.1M)

I'm not trying to bash them or be antagonistic- I honestly want to know how
something like this can make money.

~~~
proee
agree... After watching their screencast I was asking myself those same
questions. I don't see them making a dime, but maybe they have some trick
cards to play.

------
old-gregg
Two questions: how is it different/better than Mozilla platform? And why is
their demo app looks butt-ugly and doesn't resemble native desktop software at
all?

We've gone this route on a couple of projects: and running offline web pages
inside of an embedded browser window is not a "rich desktop application" -
it's a web site running off your hard drive, _there is_ a big difference.

~~~
bprater
I think the days of "native desktop" widgets are waning. One the web, there is
no "standard" and people are getting used to it. I'm a fan of "native", don't
get me wrong. But I'm seeing more of this every day.

------
zacharydanger
No Linux client yet.

~~~
justindz
And AIR Linux 64-bit can't use the keyring properly. If only I could get one
of the shoes twitter clients to work out of the box.

------
bprater
It's nice that they bundle the runtime. With fat hard-drives and blazing fast
connections, it would be nice to put an end to the days where installing has
been a serious headache for end-users.

------
drwh0
yet-another "rich app platform" no one will ever use and no will ever care
about

~~~
ivey
The beauty of this is that end-users have no extra install path. They download
an app, and use it. For the developer, it's a matter of taking the same skills
that make rich web apps, and make them run client side.

