The MossyBlog Times Archives 2007 - 2009 : Brand Politics

Did Microsoft copy the Adobe AIR Poster?

scbarnes — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:14:38 GMT

I often see a lot of the Adobe communities rant and rave ignorance about how Microsoft follows' Adobe’s every move, like some how they’ve got it all figured out.

The reality is that majority of the time, Microsoft was the first to make the move, sadly though, folks just can’t be bothered doing their homework and actually look beyond the delicate conscious bubble of Adobe that they live in.

The poster in question, was commissioned by my team based off the cool look and feel we saw in a poster called “A Website Named Desire”.

Now the next argument was “well that copied Adobe AIR poster then”.

(former Adobe employee – Mike Downey)

Actually no, we’ve been doing these posters for years, beyond Adobe AIR’s even birth. xplane.com are a company whom specialize in these posters and have done many for Microsoft over the years.

An example is the Microsoft HealthVault. It was done BEFORE Adobe AIR poster was even thought of (Ours, 2007. Adobe AIR 2008).

Another one before Adobe AIR, was “The universe of windows embedded devices”

There are more. I can’t find the links to them anymore, but there was one really cool one about how Microsoft can connect Government departments together that I saw in 2007 via the Microsoft Brisbane office. I have noticed many more in the offices over the years, and I can honestly say that to state we “copied” Adobe is immature and extremely ignorant.

Did Adobe copy Microsoft? I don’t think so, I think eBoy.com are brilliant at what they do and they simply appreciated the artwork that these folks do.

We have used xplane.com for years as they are also brilliant at what they do and the way they tease out the poster from you, is an amazing thing to witness and be a part of.

I found the xplane.com guys extremely gifted and amazing in how they can take a simple idea and explode it into design.

Hope that sets the record straight.

Be a student of software, don't be a student of brands.

scbarnes — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:54:11 GMT

You can buy into what makes a brand a brand. You can choose to believe in the halo or the devil appeal to a brand, but ultimately you never truly appreciate software this way.

Brands are a fickle thing, some love them, some hate them, both are filled with emotion. Software however is catalyst for emotion, the bigger the software in size, the more the two emotions will collide with one another. The smaller the software, the less the two collide.

The trick overall is to explore...

Log a bug, add a wish list, criticize someone's code, throw some ideas around on a better UI design, challenge the personas who run the software, demand they fix things that are broken and don't accept being ignored about it.

Don't trash a product after 20mins of use, trash a product that takes 20mins to use!

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.

Don't spent time worrying about the history of a brand, as in the end it's just that - history. 20 years ago, the the idea that Windows would run on a Apple machine would of been laughed at. Yet here I am today, typing on a Macbook Pro running Vista.

I adopted Flex when there was no market and it didn't even have an editor. It was 15k per CPU and all my friends said I was mad. It was fun to watch it crash land over the finish line, it was fun to push it until the rivets came off.

I moved to Microsoft, when WPF and Silverlight were at the early birthing stages, everyone said I was mad for abandoning Flex at its peak. WPF/E was limted to just JavaScript, no editor and lots of bugs, it was fun! it was new and something fresh was being baked.

I like new software, new ideas around what makes them tick and I loathe historians whom whine about the past and ignore the future. I can't suffer cheer leaders whom sit on the side line all day, whining about how the industry has wronged xyz. Pick up a keyboard, get into the mix of it all and fix it.

Point is, just be a student of software.

Stupid eh? Stupid like a fox..

scbarnes — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:30:59 GMT

The title - "7 reasons not to consider using Adobe Flex". I saw this and went

"ok, I'll bite, what are they".

I began to read them, and figured ok, I can see the authors perspective, if these 7 items are crucial to him then I won't judge and there are some points I've heard before - specifically the SWF binary vs XAML being open format?

Then I read the comments. I've never read so much ignorance in all my time on the Internet, what a load of nonsense and mass stupidity in so many ways.

The real reason I dislike this, is I'm so tired of seeing the whole Adobe vs Microsoft battle talk, buy to now see a mixup of AJAX in the equation as well (oh come on).

If we are going to fight it out online, i'd prefer we all suite up in Halo or a Mortal Kombat style game, each month we converge in different locations from around the world, duke it out and rack up points. Then at the end of every season, we get a trophy, and well we continue down this path until the game becomes so boring, people stop paying attention.

At least then we can keep score and put the energy behind building with the technology and less arguing over which technology to build with.

I shouldn't judge, as Adobe Staffers and I in the early parts of last year got into some heated debates over technology, something which I felt was immature and stupid on both parties, but to now see it continue online like this? - plain stupid. Stop the madness now..

As Miguel stated in one of his blog posts:

...Preemptive-reply-to-the-above-paragraph: I will not reply/approve any flames, FUD or half-truths..

RE: Adobe AIR + .NET Command Proxy Security concerns.

scbarnes — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:31:47 GMT

NOTE: Brand Politics mostly (Adobe are offended). If it's not your cup of tea, move on ;)

Yesterdays post has sparked an initial debate on my approach to the AIR + Command Proxy and how we believe it has security concerns associated to it.

The original post can be found here (great time to read the post, comments and come back to this spot in time).

http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2008/01/21/adobe-air-net-proxy-concerns-arise.aspx#7191774

Note: This is a response to the comments in order of weight in terms of (did they have a point).

Rather than bury this deep within the comments of such post, I thought I’d bring it more out to the open as I think these are some great data points all AIR adoptee’s (or likely to adopt) readers of this blog should be weary of. It’s in no way an attempt to discourage you from AIR adoption, that’s something we at Microsoft entrust you’ll decide based on merit and that alone (no upside in such a weak campaign).

Note: 4 immediate responses from Adobe only? 3 of which have nothing to do with the actual technology but more defending each other or for that matter echoing points I’ve already made in my original post.

Let’s keep the conversation focused gentleman and a little less wolf-pack responses.

To: Ryan Stewart @ Adobe asks:

Q. I don't really see where you've given a reason why this is a bad approach?

I should have expanded on this in more depth Ryan, I apologize for that (I assumed all were on the same page. As It seemed obvious to me and other peers I respect)

The communication channel between the command proxy and AIR application looks like a potential vulnerability. One of the things application developers should worry about with security is insecure cross-process communication mechanisms hanging around on someone’s machine. For example if a process listens on a named pipe, and that named pipe has no ACLs and no validation of inbound communication, the process is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks when garbage is sent down the pipe. In the example on using the command proxy how do you secure it so that it doesn’t turn into a general purpose process launcher?

The question I have floating around is “what is being solved here”?

AIR to me is simply a hint in empowering a specific target audience (flex/javascript) to extend such skills beyond the browser sandbox. In allowing this, AIR will of course have certain levels of access beyond a browser in terms of security, which isn’t a problem per say as some solutions may require this. The notion however to break out of the limitations imposed by AIR by leaving an open proxy running on the users machine is definitely not the way to solve the imposed limitations.

I’ve run this past a few internal and external minds to simply ensure I have a sanity check on this and they’ve all raised similar concerns. I simply assumed that this would be a logical conclusion, open ended proxies that can run Photoshop today can do interesting things tomorrow.

Spyware has a habit for example of being really good at telling you it’s not spyware, as why else would any sane person install it.

to: Matt Voerman @ Adobe.

If I was quick to judge, I apologise – just from personal experience, I’ve always found you quick to focus on me personally and not so much the topic. Yet, looking at your post from an outsiders perspective I can see how others may differ in my opinion (personality clash maybe based on local interaction).

Ok, so I found you had approx 1 point in your entire rant. The rest I already covered – IN THE ORIGINAL POST. I’d say practice what you preach hehehe.

The point: “…Two of the most requested features…”

Yet these features go ignored or have lack of commitment. The counter response to these two “requested” features is to create an insecure proxy that kind of taints the waters for all involved (which I’ll get into shortly). If your folks spent less time trying to defend one another and AIR and focus in on why this is being discussed, you’d realize it’s not about discrediting AIR or attacking Mike. It’s about ensuring that a solution of this magnitude is one that we at Microsoft are concerned about. As assume it goes pair shape, and Windows Vista based AIR solutions become tainted both our brands suffer.

To state “we don’t support this – signed Adobe” is like effectively saying “I gave birth to an idea, turned the idea into a solution and I want you – as an Adobe employee - to adopt it but at the same time I won’t support you in doing so”… take responsibility for it at the very least. As to state Adobe won’t support it underpins the notion it has flaws and is probably an immature solution.

to: JD @ Adobe.

Since we are on the topic of establishing an understanding of what our past, present and future.

Can I ask what is you do for Adobe?

You aren’t clear in that regard and to be openly honest you appear to be an “industry analyst” but with an Adobe bias? Are you a professional blogger for Adobe and do you have anything to contribute to the conversation other than what Matt may or may not have said?

That all being stated, I hadn’t really looked at my profile from that perspective and will amend if folks feel it’s misleading. (I’m surprised people actually read it. I didn’t think anything of it as the other day Mike Chambers noted I spelled "were" wrong (so either Mike didn't notice it himself or simply didn't care?)

Interesting though my profile is being a point of focus though, I mean again what does this have to do with the topic? What was that you were saying about the definition of ad hominem J .. waters get murky fast don’t they.

to: Mike Chambers @ Adobe.

I’m at a loss as to why you of all people aren’t seeing the objective here since you are the one writing it. It’s not about AIR vs. Microsoft, it’s simply a case of “…ok we are nervous because you’re effectively endorsing an insecure solution via Adobe platform without thinking through the long term effects associated with doing so..”. It’s concerning and support or not it or not, it’s almost irresponsible.

Summary

Folks, this is not about competing and it’s something I cannot stress enough. This is about ensuring that as a large brand you take responsibility for your platform and how you endorse it, specifically when it comes to our operating system. It’s in your best interest to consult us on these matters, as we are the ones whom know our own platform the best and to simply brush us aside as a competitor and do not tell is borderline irresponsible.

Let’s assume the worst happens. Let’s assume the proxy opens Pandora ’s Box. Adobe loses a lot of credibility in the desktop space by providing consumers (e.g. say eBay Desktop app uses this concept for whatever reason) essentially an endorsed vulnerability. This in turn creates havoc (insert FUD rant here) and whilst people may lose faith in your brand, in the end it also falls in our lap as well. As the perception is “Windows Vista should have protected me”.

That is my underlying point. Protection. Simply saying “We don’t support it” isn’t fair as Mike has a lot of respect within the AIR community and this respect carries weight. It’s kind like assigning 99% guarantee to an item – at the end of the day most know 99% guarantee is essentially a 100% guarantee but leaving 1% on the table in the event something goes wrong.

Kind of like Adobe essentially guarantee’s 95% of the worlds computers have Flash…

Why won't Silverlight work for Adobe Staffer Mike Downey?

scbarnes — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:08:04 GMT

I'll cut to the chase on this one. Seem's Mike Downey at Adobe suffers from Silverlight related issues whenever there is what I'd call an "Adobe Compete" situation (positive story around Silverlight or Flash).

I accept the notion that maybe I'm a bit paranoid, I don't know but you judge for yourself. Seems to happen at "Flash related" key moments in time and that's pretty much it?

(Did both a Google and Live search and weren't able to find any hints of Silverlight + Mike Downey related issues beyond these specific blog posts that well at the end of the day are somewhat Adobe compete?)

You be the judge... i do hope I'm wrong on this and would prefer to be actually.

Friday, September 21, 2007 3:40 PM
Halo 3 & Silverlight

Interesting. When I visit the game guide that you've put on the Silverlight page it tells me that I need to download Silverlight in order to view the guide - even though I already have it. What's up with that?

Thanks,

Mike Downey, Adobe

20 November 07 12:54 PM
Ice Cube's UVNTV.com Goes Live with Silverlight

Hi -

Congratulations on building one of the first Silverlight sites.

Just wanted to let you know that all of the audio in your Silverlight video is out-of-synch with the video.

Also, in order to view the video I had to leave your site via a link out to microsoft.com, download a 4.7MB Silverlight update installer (Mac) to my desktop, hide my browser and find the DMG, double-click the DMG to unpack it, double-click the installer, click through the installer, and restart my browser - losing the page that I wanted to watch in the first place.

16 January 2008, 9:17 AM
A Flash Guru Talks about Silverlight

I'd like to watch this video but the moment I hit the page it warned me that I needed to update my Silverlight install, taking me away from this site and over to the Silverlight download page, which told me I already had the latest version. I'm running Safari on Mac OS X 10.5. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

Major bummer. Jesse is always entertaining.

Thanks,

MD

Tim Heuer has already covered some of this off before via

http://www.timheuer.com/blog/archive/2007/12/04/flash-player-update-h-264-silverlight-install-experience.aspx

Ahh to be a Startup in this crazy Web 2.0+ world..

scbarnes — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:19:38 GMT

I've been in a few startups, I owe my house to one successful streak and so when I spend time with folks in today's "Startup" way of life I can't but help get itchy feet at times.

I have no real intentions of leaving Microsoft any time soon, and yet the more I see some of the roadmap's ahead around our products or future approach, I can't but help see gaps. Gaps that could be filled with the right business idea or focus. I at times shop around internally to any who want these ideas and I ask for nothing in return, other than to simply see these gaps being filled.

I say this out loud as when you listen to a CEO of a startup talk about their product, they do so with passion and excitement. They also have determination and they firmly believe they are on the right path. Money can be a driver, but mostly it's about passion and a belief that with the right amount of capital, they could blow Facebook, YouTube or whatever brand they are using as a benchmark; out of the water.

You know what, with technology the way it is today and how fast good ideas spread, these folks may just do that.

I have no doubt that the day I do decide to leave Microsoft, I'll be doing it to jump into the startup craze once again and try my hand one more time at building a great idea. Only this time, I'm sure there are more resources available, as in 1998-2000 it was bleeding edge - literally (I was working on my first RIA product until 3am, the morning of my wedding day - low point)

I'm glad Microsoft has a program for start-ups, as it's hard enough to make it in this harsh landscape we call the Internet and any help that can be thrown their way has got to be a good investment in our future.

http://www.microsoftstartupzone.com/

Now look to our competitors and compare, see we as a company aren't that bad if you give us a chance ;)

Mozilla, Adobe and Silverlight. Shall we dance?

scbarnes — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:24:26 GMT

No doubt you've seen the Prism announcement by Mozilla. Quite an interesting move in this chess game we call "The Software Industry". Personally, I'm not sure what the end game for Mozilla is anymore and I'm sure If I look hard enough I'll find that answer.

Mike Chambers at Adobe put up a post essentially stating why he thinks AIR isn't being treated fairly by the Mozilla folks (welcome to the "my competitor takes shots at me" party ). I get his point(s), but I was surprised to see him say this:

"...Maybe we need to do a better job of getting that info out there, but I would expect (and suspect) that someone working on a similar project would know that..." - Mike Chambers.

Surprised simply because it illustrates for me that AIR as a concept has many hurdles ahead of it, and not only do I disagree with it's "approach" to the market, but now that it has a competitor that's non-Microsoft, it's yet another battlefront they will have to face and a unified messaging front is overdue.

To put into perspective, Adobe needs to approach their competitors differently, and Mike's latest blog post didn't do him any favors (I understood his points, I in part agreed with him, but never ever pick a fight with Mozilla crowd as that product as emotional bonds associated to it, and you will lose - except if you're this guy). I think competition in this space is really going to push us all that much faster in terms of doing better online and to me the web tomorrow is going to exceed my expectations of today.

I agree with Mike on this comment:

"..Unlike Adobe AIR and Microsoft Silverlight, we’re not building a proprietary platform to replace the web..." - Mozilla

hmm, seems like the same execution model as both Microsoft and Adobe, only the boundaries have slightly shifted. "Not a runtime, but the agent that houses in the runtime" to which I ask you these days in our RIA world.. which is the agent and which is the runtime. Silverlight and AIR are separate, but that's been said before and yet people continue to link them together. That interests me as is it a case of "they want Silverlight to have desktop functionality" or is it a case of "no idea, but they are both x-platform so it makes sense to marry the two".

Interesting..

At times I wonder...

scbarnes — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:54:23 GMT

They say a picture speaks a thousands words. In this case, I find it tongue in cheek that Adobe's CEO Bruce Chizen got up on stage, labeled Microsoft as a "monopoly" in one breath, then talked about how great the Adobe products in another whilst doing so on Windows Vista.

I also wonder at how much market share was replenished by Adobe CS2 to Adobe CS3 due to the Windows Vista's existence? or for that matter how much of the Adobe CS3 market is made up of Windows Vista.

Does this not validate Windows Presentation Foundation's (WPF) potential even further?

Sadly, I know the tone of this post is a little tongue in cheek counter argument to the Adobe's top boss but it's really disappointing to see that attitude (at that level) as it must send mixed signals to the folks below him.

I at times get feedback "take the high road with Adobe Scott".. yet I wonder if that road is available?

You can watch the keynote here and judge for yourself:
http://www.podtech.net/home/4418/adobe-flex-and-air-with-bruce-chizen-a-dreamforce07-keynote

"...When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.."

P.S
Picture was made with Adobe Photoshop CS3 & Windows Vista Snippet Tool running on an Apple iMAC (VMWare Fusion) and filed under "Brand Politics". I am never one brand, I just work for one.