Some Flash related stuff:

• Swf_fu – a neat little Rails helper for embedding SWF files in your applications, especially handy if you’re using CDN’s
• Ruby-ImageSpec – Another tiny, but handy utility which gets you the dimensions of a given image, or flash file, very handy if you’re using SWFs in a CMS, and want to avoid the Firefox 100% bug
• HTML5 – The momentum against using plugins in the browser appears to be growing. The XHTML 2 Working Group is shutting down at the end of this year to focus on HTML 5

And some people talking out of their arses:

• An argument against selling different versions of your product – which only works in the M$ case, the epitomy of evil. The 37signals argument just fails completely. More resources = more cost to them.
• Jacob Nielsen claiming masking passwords is bad – which is fine if you don’t mind having any security

Bookmark It

“WTF does Enterprise mean?”

Generally, we come back to the same thing.  Big business likes to call itself “Enterprise” because it somehow makes what they’re talking about more important.  By saying you’re building an Enterprise application somehow makes it better, even though the requirements may be identical to that of a smaller non-enterprise company.

Now, let’s slide this back a bit and take a look at software.  There’s a whole raft of stuff out there in the software market that calls itself “Enterprise” with no real definition of what this actually means.  Usually, you’ll see the same thing, i.e. a couple of extra features, slightly better performance, and a MUCH higher price tag.  Just like the wedding market:

So, what do you actually get for your money?  Usually it’s not much, as you can’t really buy real enterprise level services off the shelf.

But this then raises the question – what are enterprise level services?

In my mind, these are the things that don’t necessarily some in the shrink-wrapped box.  Let’s, for a moment, take the example of Snap-on tools.  Whilst they aren’t normally referred to as an enterprise service, I believe they are a good example of one.  Snap-on, on a basic level, manufacture tools for the motor trade.  You go to them and buy one of their socket sets, or whatever else may offer.  Now, this is exactly what you can do at any auto-factor anywhere on the planet. However, Snap-on are more expensive.

So what makes Snap-on a good analogy for the enterprise?

Well, for a minute, put yourself in the shoes of the guy using the tools.  One day, your tool will fail. One day it will break, and you’ll need to either use a workaround, or down tools and try and get hold of a new one.  This could mean lost money, a trip down to the auto-factor’s again for something potentially out of stock, or something worse like an unhappy client.

This is where the enterprise support of Snap-on steps in and justifies it’s extra cost.  Your tool fails, and you’re stuck.  So you give your local Snap-on dealer a call (which are all mobile based), and he comes round and gives you a replacement tool free of charge.  You then carry on with your work and go home happy.

Therefore, in my eyes, Enterprise means that you are buying a service, not a price-tag.  You’re buying something that means you won’t lose out at any point, or that someone else will worry about keeping something functioning.  You’re basically paying an insurance policy against having to worry about anything.

This leads me to believe that we’re suffering from the effects of those f**kwits known as marketing departments who sit there spouting their mar-bollocks trying to peddle their crap.  Unfortunately to a marketer, sticking Enterprise on the name means they can charge five times as much as provide much the same thing.

So, next time you’re buying Enterprise, consider the price hike you’re being nailed with and have a serious think about what you’re actually getting for your money.

Bookmark It

What’s more interesting is that this is a relaunch. From what I understand from a quick google this was previously an application written in WPF (the Windows Presentation Foundation), a platform based in the murky world of .NET, and also one that won’t run on my Mac making it 100% inaccessible to me, and thus rendering it completely useless.

So, WPF lasted 2 and a half years before it got ditched, but it’s not entirely clear as to why. One theory is that the original application was originally sponsored in some way by Microsoft*, as it was unveiled by Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Gates in Seattle on April 28th 2006. It may be that the NYT have since reviewed user feedback (like: let me install it on my frickin Mac!) or they are super impressed by the new Text Layout framework.

To some extent this also echoes the recent switch of the MLB.com from Silverlight to Flash for streamed content. Again, a “collaboration” between Microsoft and MLB, that has now been ditched in favour of the Adobe technology again.

Now, the conspiracy theorists out there might suggest that Microsoft paid for these apps to be built in order to get the technologies out there, but now the media companies are reacting to customer feedback and ditching them in favour of the flash platform for various reasons.

I would genuinely like to know what’s going on here. Is it a case of the media companies are choosing the better technology, or are Adobe quietly paying out to these companies to get Flash out there, in order to kill the opposition? Answers on the back of a postcard please…

Interesting stuff…

* I’ve just found on Wikipedia that this was a “collaboration“

EDIT: It also appears that in the UK Channel 4 have recently done the same thing, previously having used a “Windows-only DRM”, and now having switched to Flash.

Bookmark It