Macromedia Central Failing

14 Comments

• I think that, in theory, it is a good idea. But, like the quote above, there is the question of whether or not Macromedia actually does give you enough to hold up their end of the bargain.
  
  20% isn't all that bad for small companies that don't have the infrastructure to handle setting up the free trials, payments, etc of small ($5-%15) apps. But if MM is not pushing the platform, then this could very well be another MS Bob, WebTV, PocketPC, or any other soon-to-be-forgotten technology that will leave a handfull of developers feeling burnt.
  
  I personally haven't spent enough time with Central to really have an opinion about it but one of my associates is head-over-hills in love with it. He gets "that look" in his eyes when he starts talking about it. But, so far, I haven't seen anything come of it that makes meunderstand his enthusiasm.
  

• What you are saying appears to be one of the reasons a lot of devs are frustrated. Macromedia apparently:
  
  
  
  a) did not know how to use their own technology, so they are hoping developers will figure something out.
  
  
  
  b) couldn't get buy-in from any major corps during the beta cycles, so they have a 1.0 release with no apps.
  
  
  
  If the product is truly the next great thing, a company as big and powerful as Macromedia should have been able to get some high profile launch partners for the 1.0 release. Independant developers aren't going to jump on the bandwagon unless the big guns validate that the technology is going to be used by the masses. At the very least, Macromedia could have come up with some cool demos (like the kick butt realestate demo that Microsoft has running on Avalon/Longhorn...funny... they are still 2 years away from their release, but their demos already blow away all of the Central apps I have seen or heard of)
  

• I don't know -- we had a great idea for Central and dev budget in place and a dev team ready to go but we needed to integrate on several points outside of the existing framework. Although we received a warm initial reception we heard nothing back afterwards and have had to shelve the project.
  

• A new technology is promoted by
  
  a) hackers (who have the brains, creativity and lots of time)
  
  b) corporations (who have money, marketing, and good connections).
  
  
  
  Microsoft, for example, has developed a strategy for attracting hackers to .NET environment, now they are doing the same for WinFX. They have given all the compilers for free, lots of samples, tutorials, (almost) perfect documentation (probably they studied their former mistakes). They are even giving away free IDE's (e.g. WebMatrix).
  
  
  
  Probably, Macromedia Central requires a similar strategy for attracting creative people.
  
  afaik, to compile a Central application one has to purchase Flash IDE (by the way MM has never provided a free AS compiler, it's always bounded with the IDE). Also most commercial Central applications will require other investments, e.g. develop and host a web service, provide support for consumers.
  
  I guess that individual developers and small companies will start investing in Central their time and money after that they hear lots of success stories. This will take time.
  

• Just Impatience,
  
  
  
  Folk who have focused primarily in the web development world may be used to 2-3 week development cycles, but I've never seen a real application that was worth writing that took less than three months unless it used a lot of code from a previous project. The beta period doesn't count as most developers didn't have access to it until the end.
  
  
  
  Tack on to that the fact that there aren't a lot of flash developers who have focused on developing apps, that developing apps with Flash is tricky, that a new version of Flash just came out with a significant set of new features to examine and the fact that Central development has it's own learning curve and I think it's quite reasonable that there haven't been any significant apps yet from small developers. Also, small developers will usually divide their time between a small app and other work that has an immediate payoff so as not to put all their eggs in one basket.
  
  
  
  If there are any large companies out there developing apps, you can be sure that their vision will also be larger than that of the small developers as they won't want to create something that is later eclipsed by some small developer version of the same thing.
  
  
  
  As for the logic of small developers waiting to see something by the large developers before they create something, it makes no sense to me.
  
  
  
  From the small developers perspective, it seems that what you want is to have a nice small application up and running at the same time or soon after Macromedia makes it's initial public announcement, not before. This I imagine will only occur once there is at least one good sized app ready and at least a couple of little apps. As long as the small app you put together isn't the same thing as the big app, you should get more exposure than you could generate yourself in a year. Any app that you can put out, even if you do a bit now a bit in the spring and a bit in the summer, in between other work, will still be created early enough to form a continuous stream of ducats for the future.
  
  
  
  So to make a short story long, if you don't see half a dozen usefull apps sprout up by June, then I would agree with you. Otherwise I think you're just being impatient.
  
  
  
  

• Jesse wrote:
  
  > Macromedia apparently:
  
  > a) did not know how to use their own technology, so they
  
  > are hoping developers will figure something out.
  
  > b) couldn't get buy-in from any major corps during the beta
  
  > cycles, so they have a 1.0 release with no apps.
  
  
  
  I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that either of these starting predicates are true.
  
  
  
  As I tried to note previously, this public developer 1.0 is quite different from the upcoming consumer launch. November's release provides a starting base from which people can start creating tools.
  
  
  
  I haven't been able to run the Real Estate demo on my systems myself, and so can't usefully compare it to existing RIAs.
  
  
  
  jd/mm
  
  
  
  

• >a) did not know how to use their own technology, so they are hoping developers will figure something out.
  
  
  
  Jesse, could you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you are getting at here?
  
  
  
  We have been very active in talking to developers about Central to find out what they want, but I don't think that suggests that we don't understand our own technology.
  
  
  
  >b) couldn't get buy-in from any major corps during the beta cycles, so they have a 1.0 release with no apps.
  
  
  
  Intel has released a HotSpot finder.
  
  
  
  AOL is working on both an AIM / ICQ client, as well as an API that opens their networks to Central developers / applications.
  
  
  
  As JD pointed out, this is a developer's release, intended to get developers familiar with Central. There have been quite a few applications built, but most have been of the "I am learning Central" typer of application. This is what we expected.
  
  
  
  As far as pricing, yes, some people are not happy about the pricing for Central. That is to be expected anytime something has a price. However, that does not mean that we have hit the sweet spot, and we have been very active in working with developers to find out what that "sweet spot is".
  
  
  
  mike chambers
  
  
  
  mesh@macromedia.com
  

• So perhaps Macromedia should have had an longer open beta period, where developers could provide feedback on the architecture and design and learn about using Central? It seems quite strange to have a 1.0 release with no apps, regardless of whether it is a developer release... this makes sense in a beta period, but not a 1.0. Perhaps I'm wrong here, we'll just have to wait for the consumer launch. My experience though has been that my desktop apps or web apps that do the same things central is doing (like weather or blog or movie finder, etc.) get used a lot more. Central just gathers dust on my HD.
  

• Besides, it's absolutely essential that the Yahoo agreement for try/buy applications does support international developers. Actually, you must reside in U.S. or open a branch there! Without that legal barrier, you would actually see the first Central application that really makes it, IMHO.
  
  
  
  Otherwise, 20% is fair to me. But pending the settlement of that show-stopper for non U.S. developers, I am translating this Central application to run under Delphi or C# as the back-end for trial/purchase is already in place on my server.
  

• I've posted about this several times, but this is the bottom line:
  
  
  
  Central forces organizations to buy a subscription to apps developed with their own resources. So not only do they have to pay for the tools and manpower to create an app, they then have to BUY the end product. It's completely ridiculous and will NEVER work. The decision-makers I know, even the ones that have a clue about what central is and how it works, still laugh uncontrollably at the pricing model.
  

• "Dave" wrote about internal corporate use.
  
  
  
  As you'll note from Mike's reply (here, and previously elsewhere), the initial economics aren't locked in stone, and there's active investigation to find several viable ways to go.
  
  
  
  But when I read your post I wasn't sure why you were looked at a common shared toolbox like Macromedia Central, instead of creating standalone applications for internal corporate use. (Central's unique advantage is in being able to easily and securely install multiple persistent tools with customizable data-sharing abilities -- a standalone focuses on one tool in its own environment from a trusted coder.) Elaborating on your particular scenario in one of the Central-oriented blogs could be very helpful, thanks.
  
  
  
  (Big "ditto" on that "international" request from "Zeus". Localization has always been a particular concern of mine, because you have language issues, transaction issues, and *also* data-localization issues to consider! (The way weather, news, other webservices aren't always available for every area, etc.))
  
  
  
  jd/mm
  

• way back in the '70s there was this new technology called video. There were two players in this case. VHS and Beta. Beta was the superior product in every aspect, I mean it kicked its competitions ass, big time. In all aspects except one that is.....Licensing. You see, Beta was a technology owned by Sony and Sony wouldn't anyone else make the players and charged a large sum to put content on that format. VHS on the other hand, allowed free or near free (not sure which) use of its format and allowed many companies to produce its players.
  
  
  
  How many of us have a beta player?
  

• 
  
  Central is failing primarily due to the licensing models. For most developers, content publishers and for corporate internal apps, none of the licensing models make economic sense.
  
  
  
  Central had 6 + months of beta. Since it is built on Flash, for most developers the learning curve is small. That is not the reason for not having any apps in the AppFinder. FYI, there were 30+ apps in the beta App Finder. Many beta developers who were developing are even those who completed apps - gave up - on learning the details of licensing - whose details were not revealed until release. If MM is afraid that others will copy their licensing models, they need not worry!
  
  
  
  Finally, for a Release 1, it has enough features and fairly stable, to build useful apps (My IE 6.0 crashes more often than Central!). It is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, Release 1 will not have enough usage or apps to provide the needed feedback to make Release 2 even better.
  
  
  
  MM employees keep (they are no doubt sincere) saying - "give us constructive feedback". In the last six weeks there were 200+ messsages on different forums - that gave valuable feedback on the licensing as well as lots of complaining ofcourse. If it is clear to everyone else on what is wrong, why the hell is it taking so long for MM management to fix the licensing models. Is it possible that someone at MM does not want Central to succeed?
  

•