I wanted to share a couple of links and some of my thoughts about Mozilla Prism (also here), which (from my understanding) is currently a way to take a browser page and isolate it so that it runs in its own window (and maybe its own process — not certain about that one) without the extra trappings of browser chrome. It’s been compared with Adobe AIR, and while there are similarities there are certainly differences too.

I missed the initial announcements and only became aware of Prism a couple of weeks ago when I happened on a discussion of Prism by Mike Chambers (complete with rather emotional comments on many sides). I can’t say I agree with everything Mike says there — it sounds like at the time he wrote it he didn’t have a complete understanding of what Prism was/is — although certainly some of the people who commented obviously didn’t have a great understanding of Adobe AIR. In any case, it’s an old (by Internet time) post, so I’m sure nobody in that conversation would want to be held to their stated opinion.

My opinion about Prism is more in line with something JD shared recently, specifically the quote below which I think clarifies the value proposition (and relative merits) of both AIR and Prism:

For me, the top difference between the Adobe Integrated Runtime and what I currently understand of Mozilla Prism is the balance between creator choice and user choice. AIR lets you create a predictable beyond-the-browser experience; Prism lets the developer indicate how they’d like the presentation to appear, but the enduser can still modify the markup, scripts and styles they choose to package up in Prism. Two different types of contract between creator and consumer.

Any existing webpage can be repackaged and modified in Prism; any web developer can create desktop-optimized experiences in AIR.

I think this is very relevant to one example that I’ve given to explain one of the benefits of AIR. There are now apps that people use in a browser (e.g. GMail), but they use them like a desktop application — opening them up and keeping them open all day. The user doesn’t want that browser window to navigate to a different page, and if some web site causes the browser to hang or crash, the user’s email app gets hung too. For an app like that, it makes sense for the developer to create a version in AIR that can be run as a separate application. However, there’s a big dependency from the user perspective — the app developer has to actually create the AIR app. (e.g. Google would have to make an AIR version of GMail). Once the developer decides to build an AIR app, there are other benefits and capabilities that become available — but the point is it’s still in the developer’s hands to actually build the app. The value I see for Prism is that with Prism the end user can choose to make that app a Prism app without the need for any action by the app developer. Of course, the app will still have dependencies on things like an Internet connection, and won’t have any more capabilities than any other browser-sandbox app. But it’s certainly no worse than what the user already has in the browser, with some nice conveniences added in.

Since I’ve been working on Adobe AIR, I naturally have lots of thoughts about what it is and isn’t, and how it compares to some of the many similar and related technologies that have been announced and released over the past year or so.

Today I read an article by Tim Negris that I think does a great job of clearly articulating how AIR fits into the ecosystem, in particular what types of applications AIR is suited for. It also includes some insightful analysis of how the competitive landscape is shaping up, and how the release of AIR might be related to some of the negative and/or confusing messages about Adobe that have come out recently.

Anyway, if you’ve been wondering about AIR and some of its competing/related platforms, I highly recommend this article:

Why Adobe AIR Is Not Google Gears, Prism, JavaFX or Silverlight