During the past year we’ve been focussing on branding around the Flash Platform’s tools and runtimes.
For example Flash Platform for the Digital Home is how we refer to the optimized Flash Player that runs on set-top boxes. Under the hood it’s Flash Lite 3.1, but that’s a Flash Player optimized for TVs, get it? You’ll notice that in the coming months I’ll be referring to Flash Lite as Flash Player across the board, and you should too.
To be clear though Flash Lite is still the name of the product.
So today we announced that one of our key products Flex Builder will be renamed Flash Builder in the next release. It makes a lot of sense when you consider Flash Catalyst is on the way and we need a way to tie them together, they both rely on the same open source Flex SDK.
In terms of workflow you could create your assets in Photoshop, use Flash Catalyst to turn these assets into a interactive experience. Then in Flash Builder you tie up the underlying functionality and hook up the data services etc.
Flex doesn’t disappear as a brand, you still call yourself a Flex Developer because you’re using the open source Flex SDK. The only difference is that you do your development in Flash Builder.
So that’s all clear then, but Serge has a nice post on this.
#1 by Emanuele Cipolloni on May 16, 2009 - 2:14 pm
Sorry, I don’t get it, if you refer to Flash Lite as Flash Player, but the former cannot play all the content of the latter, I believe it is only going to generate confusion.
#2 by Mark Doherty on May 16, 2009 - 5:16 pm
Hey Emanuele,
I’ll still be talking about Flash Lite, but just referring to it as a Flash Player.
e.g “Flash Player optimized for mobile phones is available on 1 Billion devices”
#3 by Emanuele Cipolloni on May 16, 2009 - 6:19 pm
Ok Mark, not sure what is the advantage of changing definition right now, but throwing in that “optimized” word in when you really mean “not the full player” sounds a lot more of marketing PR than a simplification.
Please guys don’t follow MS on the naming of products, it is getting annoying already!
#4 by Mark Doherty on May 17, 2009 - 2:33 am
I understand the “not the full player” sentiment very well, but whatever way you look at it the Flash content that you create for Flash on the web or the desktop or mobile and devices is just a SWF. Of course the Flash Lite player today cannot play AS3 content, however our goal is to ensure that as many devices as possible can. When we shipped Flash Lite 3.1 it could play 92% of the top 500 websites, and that was at the end of 2008.
Ultimately I think that referring to “Flash Player” is a better way of understanding what you’re talking about to customers. You should see this as a demonstration of our commitment to deliver the Flash Platform across screens. Mobile is the top priority, so it’s only right to call it Flash Player and AIR in the future. Mobile is a slow world of progress, and so this is my way of keeping it simple.
There will always be optimizations, as there have been on the desktop.
#5 by Scott Janousek on May 23, 2009 - 7:04 pm
When people ask what I do I say I do “Flash on Mobile and Devices”, rarely do I say: Flash Lite … I’ve been doing this ever since Flash Lite 2.0 came out …
More often than not nowadays, I’ve saying I’m a Mobile and Device Developer (especially towards those not familiar with Adobe – yes, those people do exist
).
Makes perfect sense to me, not sure what Emanuele is all up in arm about (although I respect his detailed viewpoints on many posts) … there’s a place for talking about Flash Lite when you’re specifically talking about tech and products, but overall I agree with Mark, that’s it’s best to refer to “Flash” (on mobile devices) in the generic sense … after all, when it comes down to it, we’re all dealing with SWFs.
What I *can’t* stand and don’t agree with is when Flex, or other desktop folks refer to Flash 10 on devices as “full” Flash … to me this is (most probably) wrong and I think we all know that 10 will have limitations (lol), and even some frag is going to take place between both desktop … as well as the v10 early OEM adopters (hopefully it is controlled in at least *some* manner. OTA updates will help?
Not sure how I feel on the Flash Builder rebranding … I guess I’m ok with it … probably cause I never started with Flex, so I have no sentimental attachment to the whole “I’m a Flex Developer”, thing … ultimately, it all comes down to SWF, anyways … lol.
#6 by living room decoration on October 17, 2009 - 7:54 pm
i am looking forward for this Flash Player..