Adobe describes AFCS as follows: "Adobe Flash Collaboration Service is a Platform as a Service that allows Flex developers to easily add real-time social capabilities into their RIA (Rich Internet Applications). Comprised of both Flex-based client components and a hosted services infrastructure, Adobe Flash Collaboration Service allows you to build real-time, multi-user applications with Flex in less time than ever before. And because Acrobat.com hosts the service, issues like deployment, maintenance, and scalability are taken care of for you."
I personally love real-time capabilities in web apps and AFCS (just like FMS) really excites me. I have a long list of ideas that I'd love to build with it. What's tricky right now is picking the right tool for the job. My current tool of choice is FMS and has 90% of the features I need in a real-time enabled web app. The developer workflow may not be best with FMS still stuck at AS1 on the server side and very limited APIs for the outside world to talk to it, but most of the time I can build what I want with it.
AFCS on the other hand is tempting since I no longer need to worry about scalability, plus Adobe gives me a whle new bunch of Flex components I can use ready to roll. I can also build on top of the underlying data model and come up with my own components. Very powerful stuff.
The questions that remain unanswered (but which will no doubt be answered soon) are those of pricing, amongst other things.
The future for Flash powered RIAs looks bright, and I cannot wait to dig deeper into the new AFCS. Adobe now needs to make it clear to potential customers how AFCS differs from FMS, and when we should use which platform. I cannot help but notice that by renaming Flash Communication Server to Flash Media Server and naming Flash Collaboration Service the way they did they are giving some clear signals of what type of apps they'd like to see on which platform. FMS is getting tons of attention, but 99% of that attention is for streaming video and not real-time apps.
I will feel sad if FMS will be put on the back burner when it comes to developing collaborative apps, but then I guess things change, priorities change and new platforms emerge. Exciting times and exciting apps ahead, I hope FMS will remain part of this ecosystem.
Signing process would work for me, and anyway it's only presenters that need the add-in.
With some "screen-grabbing" alternatives out there today, and a shift over the last few years on people's willingness to download software more readily (AIR's 100M downloads as an example), I wonder whether Adobe providing this option is as critical as it once was. The lightning-download process was incredibly important a few years ago, but an apparent shift and comfort around downloading (improvements in broadband, user-experience improvements, etc...) might support more "roll-your-own" solutions that can not take advantage of that download-process.
The bottom line for me (I'll try not to go off on a tangent) is that we should have this functionality now with AFCS, in fact we should have had it years ago.
The longer Adobe keep stumm on this issue (speak to the Flash Player team is what I keep hearing) the less credibility they have with their claims of enabling us to build really useful apps on AFCS.
Any eLearning client will ask you within 5 minutes if screen or app sharing is on your app's feature list. Time and time again I have to explain them that it isn't, and frankly I am getting tired of it. It's a must have feature IMO. Third party hack-it-with-a-Java-applet-or-screencap-driver approaches are just not cutting it if you are looking to create a well rounded user experience.
I in no way meant to discredit the work you and your team do, quite the opposite.
But I believe screensharing is a much needed feature for eLearning apps in particular, and adding it will take the service truly to a new level. I couldn't imagine Connect without it either.
I can't see myself lobbying any more though; the AIR team is aware of this feature request and several other users have expressed a need for it on the prerelease site.
http://www.webex.com/dailydemo/index.php
How can anyone looking at platforms envision doing a full-featured collaboration application while not have application and screen sharing in their core toolbox?
There's a lot to like in AFCS and I'm happy to see it mature into a robust service, but collaboration applications need screen and application sharing to be competitive in many markets. That's just the way it is. Connect has it and AFCS doesn't. For third party developers that's just nasty.
Cheers,
-Brian
Sure, there are applications you can build without screen and application sharing and AFCS is a great enabler. But, I'm not just interested in some diminutive category called "Web Conferencing." I'm interested in applications where people work together in real time whenever they want to. Enabling collaborative work means that people have to be able to work on the same thing. For example it may be to markup a document, image, video, or 3D object as in octopz.com or it may be to co-author a document as in etherpad.com.
Working together in real time (and on your own time) on the Web is a big deal! Screen, and more importantly, Application sharing, guarantees that you can at least work together via any application supported by a desktop. That feature is a huge enabler. Companies like FogCreek have viable products like CoPilot that rely entirely on Application Sharing.
So what platform should I use when I want to build applications that let people work together on the same thing? Adobe is promoting something called the Flash platform. We all know that Flash, via an extension, can do screen and application sharing and has been used to do exactly that in Adobe Connect.
But the extensible features of Flash are not available to third party developers.
Now, when Cocomo was first announced, the announcements coming out of Adobe mentioned it would have screen sharing as in Connect.
I didn't think that screen sharing would necessarily arrive in the first release.
But really, is Adobe a platform company?
Every day that Adobe doesn't deliver the same client-side capabilities into the hands of 3rd party developers that its own developers use begs the question.
Finally, even Webex isn't just about "web conferencing" anymore. Check out their developer program:
http://webex.com/partners/developer-overview.html
It's just not about "video conferencing" or "web conferencing" anymore. It's about platforms and there are some things in Adobe's Flash platform that so far Adobe is keeping to itself.
So, great as AFCS is, it's time to do more and finally level the playing field.
Yours truly,
-Brian
My own personal ideas and use cases do not revolve around web conferencing in the traditional sense but are more focused on 'proper' education and eLearning capabilities. Screen and app sharing is a massive, massive feature and every client asks for it at some point. Sometimes the lack of it is a deal breaker.
Adobe may think that keeping this feature under wraps protects their own Connect service, but what's actually happening is that business is driven towards competitors as well. I cannot imagine Connect being such a golden cow that enabling AFCS with screen and app sharing would hurt Adobe, especially when AFCS will be a subscription based service. It's a win-win in my book for everyone involved: Adobe, its developers, their clients and end users.
I really wish Adobe could be open about its motives on this issue so that these discussions could be more productive.
Since AFCS pricing has not been finalised we don't know how it compares there.
It's still early days, and until a version 1.0 of AFCS ships it will be hard to make a decision between it and Connect. If I was your customer I would probably wait, or go with Connect in the short term, ready to switch if AFCS looks attractive.
http://application.bethel4success.net
Sorry, I know it is not the place, but feel free to send me any link you believe will help me in my Flex journey.