|
Posts Tagged ‘Adobe’
jack - Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
As some of you may know, when it comes to consumer facing Augmented Reality experiences here at Zugara we’re opposed to executions that require people to download a plug-in. Our deep experience in the interactive space has taught us that downloads are a gigantic barrier for people, that’s why our products are built in Flash (which has a penetration rate of over 99%). Of course, the question is: how big of a barrier are plug-ins?
Now the technology companies that require plug-ins for their Augmented Reality executions aren’t quick to release stats regarding bounce rates (which isn’t exactly the most shocking piece of news), but I just found some stats in a Unity Technologies blog post that I find incredibly telling. Unity Technologies are the makers of Unity 3 “a game development tool that has been designed to let you (developers) focus on creating amazing games.” Like Shockwave, Unity 3 requires that the gamer has a specific plug-in to play the games that are developed using the proprietary platform.
In their blog post, Unity divulges that for users that don’t already have the plug-in only 60% successfully install it. They go on to note that “for Shockwave we believe it is around 40%.” Obviously, in relation to Shockwave, a 60% success rate is pretty good… but that still means 40% of the people you’ve worked to get to your site, are opting out of the experience because of the download. And judging by the fact that they blogged about it, it appears that a 40% bounce rate is a good number for the industry…
Okay, I don’t want to argue, so let’s just split the difference between the Unity and Shockwave numbers noted above and say that the average successful download rate is 50%. If you’re creating an Augmented Reality experience for people, a 50% success rate on a download is unacceptable, and terrible for your business. Would you stand outside a brick and mortar store and only let in 50% of the potential customers people who wanted to enter? Of course not… So why aren’t we as an industry applying the same principles to our online branding? Why do you think marketers are still forcing downloads on their consumers? What are the “pros” that outweigh (what I see as) a very big “con”? I’d love to hear your thoughts below (especially if you have more data on download rates)…
blake - Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
In response to Apple’s recent shutting out of anything Flash on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad, Mike Chambers, Adobe’s product manager for the Flash platform, made a statement about Apple mobile development.
“As developers for the iPhone have learned, if you want to develop for the iPhone you have to be prepared for Apple to reject or restrict your development at any time, and for seemingly any reason. . . The primary goal of Flash has always been to enable cross browser, platform and device development. The cool Web game that you build can easily be targeted and deployed to multiple platforms and devices. However, this is the exact opposite of what Apple wants. They want to tie developers down to their platform, and restrict their options to make it difficult for developers to target other platforms.”
In one of the most interesting official statements to come out of Apple in a while, Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller responded,
“Someone has it backwards – it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary.”
Let’s take a second to get away from the spin and run through the facts about which side in this argument is more “closed and proprietary” than the other.
Distribution
- iPhone: Apple maintains a closed distribution model (the App Store) that is the only way to get applications without breaking the warranty of your device. Apple also maintains a very profitable closed distribution method for music and video, and only allows select partners to deliver media outside of it.
- Flash: While the Flash plugin is proprietary, it is available for use through all major web browsers and practically every smart phone, other than the iPhone, at no cost to the user and without limiting other interactive content platforms. Also, with Flash, the user has open access to many sites that offer free delivery of music and videos.
Development
- iPhone: In order to develop for Apple’s mobile devices and distribute to the majority of users, the developer must pay Apple $99 a year for the right to not only submit applications and keep them in the App Store, but just to test them on a device. Compare this to Android, where all of that is 100% free. Also, a developer must sign an extensive terms of service agreement that effectively gives Apple the right to steal their application and release it as their own intellectual property.
- Flash: While the Flash CS5 and Flash Builder development environments cost about $500 a piece, Adobe also provides the Flex SDK, which has the exact same coding abilities, completely free. It is relatively easy for a developer to make and distribute Flash applications, including desktop apps through AIR, at no charge and with no approval process or possibility of having it stolen by Adobe.
Other “Closed and Proprietary” Things That Apple Does on Mobile
- Apple doesn’t allow fully functional third party apps that “duplicate functionality.”
- Apple doesn’t allow apps that “ridicule public figures,” though the 1st Amendment does.
- Apple limits how apps can use public data that can be accessed through the browser anyway.
- Apple limits how third party Ad systems can send statistics.
- Apple limits what languages can be used to make applications. Note that not one of Miller’s supported “open and standard” languages is Object-Oriented and capable of delivering native quality applications, through the browser, like Flash can.
With this list, I’m not trying to say that one side is morally better than the other, but Apple calling out Flash for being “closed and proprietary” is most certainly hypocritical, if not downright ridiculous. Personally, it’s getting annoying to have to regularly break down the spin, and sometimes logical inconsistencies, of an Apple statement to come to an estimate of the real reasoning behind the action (something I must do, because their decisions affect my profession). I can’t help but think that if the real reason was at all benevolent, such as supporting open standards, there would be no need for these types of blatant cover-ups.
Follow me on Twitter: @blakecallens
Zugara - Wednesday, April 14th, 2010
Zugara - Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Zugara - Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
|
|
-
Most Viewed
-
Most Commented
-
Categories
-
Popular Tags
-
About
We Are Organized Chaos (WAOC) is Zugara’s (www.zugara.com) interactive marketing and advertising blog where we’ll be featuring some great projects and discussing upcoming trends in the digital world. Work — good and bad — will be critiqued. Hope you’ll enjoy reading our insights and thoughts on interactive.
-
Authors
-
Must Reads
Interactive Marketing and Advertising
Social Media
Gaming/Entertainment
Technology
Website Design/Dev
Cool/Weird Stuff
Analytics/Stats
Mobile
Video
Automotive
-
Archives
-
Our Tweets
|