Apollo why the hype? My first test using it.
March 21st, 2007
Everyone is blogging about Apollo, now that it’s out. So I downloaded it and gave it a try. The first sample I ran, was the PixelPerfect.air app. This is the first screen I get:
WTF? …
Ok.. So it has some kind of security “feature” that tells you:
“Hey, if you click install, I’m not responsible if I delete your hard drive or read your emails”
BTW that shield looks pretty much like the Windows Firewall icon.
Anyways, I managed to get a bit of courage and click install. The app works as expected but I still feel a bit disturbed, not knowing if it’s deleting anything, or sending my credit card details through the network. I still have to read the docs to understand a bit more. So I will be updating this post with my findings.
I still don’t get why the big Hype?
MDM Zinc can also produce “cross-system” installers for Windows, Mac and Linux. Zinc also has alpha transparency, socket connections and much, much, more…
The only great advantage of Apollo I see at the moment, is that it’s free.
I’m not the only one that doesn’t see the “wow” in Apollo. Here are a couple of links:
Ricard Cabello
Alessandro Crugnola
I have this mixed feeling where: “I hope Apollo doesn’t destroy what MDM has achieved, but I also wouldn’t like Apollo dying like Macromedia Central…”
Entry Filed under: Apollo
Del.icio.us
Technorati
6 Comments Add your own
1. Thijs&hellip | 2007-03-21 at 11.31 pm
That’s a daunting installer screen.. Imagine applications like Skype coming with that kind of messages, nobody would trust or download it anymore. I’m wondering how people the ‘Publisher Identity’ and ‘System Access’ can be verified, and I hope it doesn’t require any keys or authorization from Adobe, like Macromedia Central.
2. David Tucker&hellip | 2007-03-21 at 11.33 pm
First - Apollo applications will be “signed” just like actual distributed applications. With this being the Alpha, no apps are signed yet - hence the big red X - And yes, that is the windows icon. This is a standard Windows icon - it was used to keep confusion low for the end user. They are used to seeing it.
Second - Apollo is not replacing the browser. Also, Apollo is not going to die - there is too much capital behind it. Several big companies have already jumped on the bandwagon.
Apollo apps are not for every situation. However, if you would like a good example - check out the Ebay Desktop Apollo Application.
3. akeem&hellip | 2007-03-22 at 12.49 am
I just got into zinc for a project I am working on and I began to wonder what does Apollo have over Zinc. The feature set of Zinc is pretty extensive. At the end of the project I can see how Apollo is way better, there are somethings that don’t work as advertised in Zinc (example pixel perfect transparency), yeah it works but it can slow down your app. The cross platform thing? well what Zinc doesn’ say is that you have to use the default unpacker for the app to work on a mac. As a developer it took me some minutes getting the app to run on mac because I have to do these steps and as a user I expect more trouble. Long story short Zinc is not really up to scratch and I think a unified dektop deployment (with real potential for linux in the future) is more desirable than Zinc IMHO.
4. Steven&hellip | 2007-03-22 at 2.28 am
I think having that information on the installation screen is a good thing. I WANT to know if an app I’m installing has unrestricted access to my computer - that way I can decide whether to install it or not. If you’re scared about an app ‘deleting anything, or sending my credit card details through the network’, then simply don’t install it. I would like to see all application installations give me that type of information prior to install.
5. zwetan&hellip | 2007-03-22 at 6.33 am
first,
do you realize that you’re ranting over an alpha,
meaning a product not finalized yet !
> MDM Zinc can also produce “cross-system” installers
> for Windows, Mac and Linux.
oh really ?
the Linux one is till in development for Zinc,
same as Apollo
> Zinc also has alpha transparency, socket connections and
> much, much, more…
you don’t have exactly the same API from one OS to another,
juste between WIN and MAC, MAC have much much less features.
> The only great advantage of Apollo I see at the moment,
> is that it’s free.
that’s not the only one, but still being able to use the Apollo SDK for free, allow to build open source desktop app AND release the source code, something you can not do with Zinc.
Zinc is very good, and I used it for years,
but here things it doesn’t have:
- install from a web page
- security warnings, sorry but any exe can do anything on a system, having the Apollo screen telling you what and how the application gonna access your system is a GREAT features,
this will give a chance for small shops to play in the ground of big shops, do you trust more Adobe Apollo app or joe software Apollo app ?
when you got this kind of message, joe software got a little more chance to get installed.
- auto updater
- real cross-platform design, Apollo from the ground up
is made to be cross-platform, that will avoid to have
Apollo-Windows-only app.
and this is from the top of my head, don’t even get me started with the HTML object supported by the WebKit, something that you can only have in Apollo, not in flash9 SWF wrapped in a Zinc executable.
6. Danno&hellip | 2007-03-22 at 9.49 am
First of all I will like to say that I still need to read more on Apollo because I don’t understand what security measures it will use. If there’s no sandbox and any app could run loose on your system, then I find it quite difficult that it would get adopted that quickly.
Anyways… thanks all for your comments here are my replies:
@Thijs yeah I know.. that’s what I thought when I clicked install.
@David I would like to know more about signing apps. Do you have any information on how this is going to be achieved? I don’t believe Apollo will die soon.. but there is chance it might not spread widely as Adobe intended. Take a look at Macromedia Central… I’m pretty sure that had some big bucks behind it..
@akeem That is one more advantage for Apollo, that it’s “program once and run anywhere” As zwetan also mentions, Zinc has a less featured API for MAC apps.
@Steven I reckon that if that is all the security measure apollo uses then a lot of people will have a hard time deciding to install the app or not. It will be really simple to create a trojan or a malicious program… As for network access I have my firewall which lets me know if the app is trying to connect to the outside world, so that’s one less issue.
@zwetan I know it’s an alpha product. I’m just trying to understand why is everyone so hyped about it. It’s not something that I see as a new technological breakthrough..
I understand that the zinc executable has no security features whatsoever.. I’m still trying to understand what Apollo has.
I don’t think that it’s useful if every Apollo app I install has the same pop-up. All of a sudden clicking that install button after they warn you will become something common. Like installing ActiveX on IE.. then all the adware and trojans start popping up.
I went to a WSG meeting here in Sydney and Ted Patrick was explaining Apollo. There wasn’t much time left and only some few questions were asked. But several people believe Apollo is similar to Java Web Start..
I’ll update the article with more info I find.. I’ve gotta get back to work now.
cheers,
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed