Adobe Time-Warps Half a Decade Back, Will Still Probably Defeat MSFT

Earlier this week, I went to see a couple of folks from Adobe present their latest progress on Flash Catalyst, Flex "Gumbo," and the "Spark" UI component framework.

As someone who does a bunch of Flex work, I liked everything I saw.

Especially since it was the second time around.

No, I didn't see this stuff at MAX, I saw it at Microsoft PDC in 2003 and 2005.

It was shocking how pleased Adobe seems with itself now that it's almost ready to release a design tool that generates XML and RIA code... since everything they showed -- and more -- was part of the earliest Microsoft Expression Blend alphas that I saw years ago.

The Microsoft product was code-named "Sparkle." But we won't get this confused with Adobe's "Spark" because (1) "Spark" refers to a different bit, Adobe's re-invention of lookless, templated controls, which Microsoft implemented in WPF and shared with the world at the time (around '04 or '05), and (2) because Expression Blend is already out in a 2.0 version, so unlike the Adobe products, it doesn't need a codename anymore.

Adobe even has yet another XML dialect to facilitate moving design assets through the workflow -- it's called "FXG." And it appears to supplement MXML quite well in specific areas, so that if you take MXML and add FXG, you get XAML. Not that XAML was de novo or anything -- the XUL and Java folks (desperate to stop writing Swing code) had been creating similar XML formats for a while. The Java community was especially fond of XML with tons of imperative programming constructs mixed in alongside data objects and calling it "simple and declarative." What XAML did was provide all the necessary power, while keeping it declarative.

Anyway ... Adobe should get credit for recognizing the right way to do this when they saw it. Namely, they realized which workflow tools were needed, embraced the idea of export from Photoshop and Illustrator to a vector markup with a visual editor with timelimes, and thence to an RIA build tool with a code-oriented IDE.

Now that they're finally getting this on track, Adobe is even more likely to trounce Microsoft in the RIA world. They have penetration numbers that MSFT can only dream of, and for a company that doesn't build real developer tools they're giving it the college try.

Which is kind of sad, since I believe Silverlight is a better technology with better language and tool support ... and not any less rather more open than Flash.

Want Help With Your Startup? Let It All Hang Out on Craigslist

It's awfully easy to go looking for folks doing stuff the wrong way ... and to find it. So it's nice to be surprised by someone doing something amazingly, shockingly, frighteningly ... right!

I was greeted by a craigslist ad in my RSS reader today, one of many startups looking for folks to, essentially, work for free. I've written about why this is a bad idea before, and it's still a bad idea.

But there's a little more to this ... the poster (the company's founder presumably) posts a link to a wiki. Maybe it's genius, maybe a trainwreck -- either way I had to look.

On the other side of this link is a company wiki. An explanation of what the company is building; where they are in the process; their calendar; UI mockups with notes and the comment stream by the creators; and other items.

This is absolute genius, and it's so rare. Plus it shows the guts that most entrepreneurs fancy themselves to have, but lack when tested. I'm not commenting on their specific business/tech idea, I haven't thought much about that to be honest.

But it is so refreshing to see someone out there on the beach letting it all hang out as it were.

I work with a lot of entrepreneurs and most of them think that they're the first ones to think up some genius idea, and the best way to be successful is to either keep it stealthy and secret, or to sign reams of NDAs and non-competes with you before disclosing (cue music) their subtle and delicate brilliance.

Just writing that last paragraph, it's a struggle to keep a professional tone. These folks are usually (97%, there are a couple of specific exceptions) complete fools. And truly, they are fooling themselves, unconsciously trying to avoid exposing their idea to someone who might not think it's so good, or who might point them to the dozen other people doing the same thing. Generally speaking, the secrecy ends up being a contributing factor to their failure. Which, since startups are highly failure-prone anyway, they will deny anyway.

That's why I was so thrilled to see this post. The founder is saying, "If you want to try and 'steal' my idea, you go ahead. But if you really believe there's a bunch of money in it, wouldn't you want to work with other people who believe the same thing and who have the will to execute? And if you go off with it and succeed anyway ... you're still helping me because you're establishing the category, while I plan to work nights and sweat blood to execute better and faster than you."

The ad is reproduced below. I was going to link it, but interestingly it has been 'flagged' for removal from craigslist. It's hard to imagine why -- the whole scenario seems rather more legitimate than the typical ad in the category. Perhaps the allusion to potential full-time work disqualifies it from the free "gig" listing ... but I think a startup seeking essentially non-paid volunteers in whatever capacity they can afford qualifies as a part-time or temporary arrangement.

Technical Wizard / Web Developer Wanted | Internet Startup (sunnyvale) An internet startup is seeking a highly talented web developer If you have experience with either: PHP/MySQL, Python, or Ruby we would love to talk with you. This a very exciting startup opportunity with massive potential. At this stage, we are looking to bring aboard those who are seeking equity share in the company. We simply do not have the capital to fund salaries. For more information, please have a look at: http://wiki.kunsoom.com All of the pertinent information will be included in the wiki page. Thanks for your interest in the project! We look forward to hearing from you.

Adobe and Microsoft Get Into It Like Children on the Playground

A week or so back, Adobe exec Mark Garrett got a bunch of attention for insisting that Microsoft's Silverlight effort has "fizzled."

Microsoft promptly screamed back that it wasn't so, pointing to the inauguration video stream, and a few other factoids.

What makes this truly schoolyard funny though is what happened today when Adobe "announced" it was bringing Flash 10 to phones. This seems just as dubious as Microsoft's oft-repeated plan (since as far back as '05, when it was WPF/e) to get Silverlight onto mobile phones ... by last year ... which obviously didn't happen.

Meanwhile, for years, Adobe has been pushing a weak technology called FlashLite for mobile ... and for a variety of reasons it has never been a usable option for content providers to deploy Flash content or apps.

For both Microsoft and Adobe, for both PC and phone applications, the critical metric is current "content-ready" penetration. How many devices are ready to run new Flash/Silverlight content off of the web today.

In this 2x2, the only square that's solidly covered is Adobe's Flash on the PC. "Ready" penetration of Flash 9+ is near 100%.

On PCs, existing install base is critical because of locked-down corporate networks that won't allow end-user installs. Microsoft needs to stop talking about download numbers, or numbers of people who "can access a PC with Silverlight," and start doing anything it can to get these ready penetration numbers up.

On mobile, the barrier is user confusion over configuration. Vendors could push the updates to phones, but in nearly 10 years of smartphones, only Apple has done much of this. Windows Mobile 6 has an updater ... and in over a year I don't recall it ever updating a darned thing.

Flash Lite trumpets a large "installed base," but these are strange installs, where the runtime (but not browser integration) is baked into the phone, and there's no reasonable way to get new Flash content onto the phone, either via web pages or download.

Both of these players are big on bluster and have been for a long time. Meanwhile, developers are left with few options for all of the smartphones in the world that don't an apple on the back.

Is It Too Early or Too Late for an Open RIA Design/Dev Toolchain?

I was playing with the Raphael JavaScript graphics library (a sort of script-based, cross-browser, implementation of SVG) and started thinking how helpful this library would be in creating a browser-based (as opposed to plug-in based) RIA.

That lasted for about 15 seconds before I remembered that creating large, non-trivial RIAs generally involves designers, and most designers don't like creating vector art by coding a set of "path" statements, or animations as a collection of key-value pairs and millisecond-based transition times.

That's why tools like Microsoft Expression, and Adobe Illustrator, Catalyst, and Flash exist.

And why Adobe and Microsoft are investing so heavily in the designer-developer workflow: the ability of designers to turn graphics and animations into app skins and interaction which are immediately available to coders.

In order for an open RIA solution to be competitive and realistic -- whether it's open in the pure-browser sense, using JS via dojo.gfx, or Rapael, etc., or whether it's via an open plug-in (Java/JavaFX seems like the closest, though it's not 100% open yet and may never be) -- this full toolchain needs to exist.

We need to be able to export vector art from mainstream design programs such that they can be incorporated as assets into the RIA. It doesn't matter if this is via SVG, XAML, AI/EPS, or something else entirely. What does matter is that the import/export is robust enough that designers -- whose jobs, after all, include making stuff look just right -- are confident that what they design is what end-users will see. The Microsoft and Adobe tools can do this. To date most OSS attempts cannot.

Next up, we need a truly usable, designer-friendly authoring tool for animations and interactions. It is often argued that some standard tools (*cough* Illustrator *cough*) are not paragons of usability themselves. No matter -- it's hard enough to get converts.

Happily, there seems to be emerging some consensus among the big vendors about how these tools should work (both on-screen and in terms of in intermediate data formats). That blueprint lowers the risk and challenge for an open source contender.

The biggest obstacle remaining is a classic open-source triangle-of-trouble:

1. The toolchain/workflow will not be viable until it is quite solid, since the commercial alternatives (Flash, mainly) are so entrenched.
2. It's hard to get enough contributor man-hours against such a huge project without an active user base.
3. Since the user base is not developers, the bootstrapping for #2 that makes many OSS projects work (devs are tolerant -- even excited -- about getting up on an 0.1 release) is unlikely.

The Second Law of Thermo-Specifications

A couple of days ago, Adam Milligan posted an eponymous "law" on the Pivotal Labs blog.

It includes a corollary stating, "The full definition of correct behavior of code exists in the tests for that code."

Now, there seemed to be something fundamentally off about this proposition ... and I wanted to figure out what that was.

Surely Mr. Milligan doesn't mean this in the trivial, tautological sense (define the spec to be no more than what test cases happen to exist at a point in time) ... even though Agile dogma often borders on that view, pretending it's some kind of paradoxical path to enlightenment like a Zen koan.

The comments to his post start to touch on "spec" vs. "test," and whether 100% test coverage is practical, desirable, or conclusive.

Of course even 100% code coverage, with a missing code path and a matching missing test and behavior spec equals ... test success, and wrong functionality.

In such a case, though, the problem has been externalized from the Agile context and put onto a faceless "business person" who "doesn't get" Agile because he or she actually wants to plan ahead and describe some certain specs that persist over time.

This is a neat trick. In physics, all sorts of magical things can happen if you look only inside of one context (or frame of reference) without looking at what's happening outside, or at what's happening to the frame itself. In finance, there can certainly be a free lunch ... if you can make its cost into an externality and remove it from your model.

Once you make the tests and code-based behavior spec a part of the application you're building -- and clearly, once it's a real cost center as well as a critical deliverable part of the project, you have done so -- then you are in a sense simply externalizing that troublesome human interaction (specification, functional analysis, planning). Yes, the tests match the code under test. But seen at a different level of abstraction, it's just another flavor of interface-driven development, or debugging.

Most engineers would love to realize the dream of self-describing, self-verifying code, whether that description be some kind of formal model, or a textual DSL (as with Microsoft's Oslo), or a set of tests and code-based behavior specs. And, indeed, these systems all improve the transparency of the code, propagating requirements from the outside in, and revealing when they are not met.

But even with the most "bought-in" business stakeholders, it is impossible to escape the the outermost specification layer, the one with the humans in it.

Windows 7 Keeps Suspending in VMWare? Change Your Power Settings

I'll admit, I fell right into this one.

My Win 7 VMs kept suspending while I was off working on another machine. I'd come back to the host machine and see VMWare Workstation idling with the Win 7 instance frozen in suspend.

Hmmm... Doh!

The default power configuration for Win 7 -- even when on the machine is "plugged in" -- includes dropping into sleep mode after half an hour.

This, thanks to VMWare, translates into a "Suspend Guest" operation.

Maybe Vista shipped a default power configuration like this. I don't remember it being the case, but, to paraphrase Pulp Fiction, "[Vista] may [save power] like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't [run] the filthy mother****"

Think About It: Do You Really Want Your Engineering Done "For Free"?

I enjoy reading the posts on craigslist, wherein naive entrepreneurs go looking for free software engineering talent. I know this sort of ad (no pay / equity only) bothers some people -- as though it somehow has real impact on the real jobs and pay in the industry -- but I think it's just fine. I mean, if you want a service for free, there's nothing wrong with asking. And if you are in the mood to work for free, it's nice to know where to find opportunities ...

Of course I am not referring to recruiters for genuine charity / volunteer work, where the goal is to provide services to a population that isn't served by the normal market mechanisms. Rather I'm talking about real for-profit, we're-gonna-be-the-1-in-100-successful-startup-and-make-a-boatload-of-cash kinda company.

The funny thing is that it's hard to imagine these wantrepreneurs looking for any other kind of professional services for free. Not because they feel coerced by social norms to offer money, but simply because they know better than to want what the "free professionals" have to offer.

I don't see these guys saying:

• I need heart surgery and I'm looking for a doctor who wants to keep their resume fresh. No compensation, but I'll thank you if I wake up.
• Going through a brutal divorce. Looking for a sharp lawyer to keep me from losing my shirt -- no pay, but I'll buy you a drink if we come out ok.
• Need a corporate lawyer and patent attorney. Equity only.
• Startup needs business travel on the cheap. Seeking a pilot and aircraft, not so concerned with FAA licenses or airworthiness.
• Building a new facility -- need architect, structural engineers, environmental compliance, project managers, and laborers. If we make a bunch of money, we'll pay you at some point in the future.
• Love my new car, but it needs engine work -- looking for a mechanic who'll work for free. Someone with little or no experience seeking to build up a resume is ideal.

Now, it is true that in the late 90s, during the dot-com bubble, landlords, attorneys and other did take equity. But they did so in addition to -- not instead of -- cash payment. And the odds of making bank on equity back then, while still long, were stunningly better than they are today.

I know what these guys are thinking. They're thinking "I just don't have a budget to pay for real development, and anything I can get for free is better than the nothing I can afford otherwise."

Well, in some cases, perhaps. But that's setting an awfully low bar. Likely too low to allow for a real chance of success. That is, the entrepreneur is theoretically pouring all his time, money, heart and soul into starting this business. But he's willing to gamble the whole thing on the questionable code he'll get out of someone who has nothing better to do to pad a resume while unemployed? Doesn't quite add up.

Or maybe he really wants a "partner" ... only it's unlikely this developer is going to see 50% equity. And anything less likely means the developer is along for the ride while the entrepreneur follows the same hare-brained decision process that led him to advertise the non-paid gig in the first place. In any case, the developer has no real clout when push comes to shove. He's a silent partner, just along for the ride.

True, there are a few brilliant technologists out there who simply don't need any (more) money. They have cashed out of a startup, or they run another business on the side that covers their expenses. And if you can hire one of these guys, then bully for you. But I think they are more likely to spend their time where they can make an impact on a real business, product, open-source project, or non-profit.

As for the entrepreneurs who get someone to bite ... they don't know what they're in for: a few months or more down the line, they have (perhaps) some kind of a half-baked system. They need the loyalty of that unpaid assistant to modify and improve the code, while the assistant has now seen through all the "about to receive funding" promises presented at the outset. And as the limitations of the half-baked system slowly become clear, the founder may wish to replace the developer, or throw the whole thing out and start over with a new iteration.

But unless the original developer was a real sucker, all that equity means unrecoverable dilution in the cap structure. The more equity involved and the earlier the start (meaning smaller valuation), the worse this situation turns out to be. It could even come to pass that a potential investor one day passes on the deal because of these problems in the cap structure.