Much discussion ensued in the Flash and Flex world today as Adobe announced to the community that they’re rebranding Flex Builder as Flash Builder. It’s a good change, in my opinion. Though I consider myself a Flex developer at least half the time, I think I’ve actually worked on more pure AS3 projects in Flex Builder than Flex projects. It’s clearly not a Flex-only development environment, and the new name is far more accurate and widens the audience, in my opinion. It may cause some initial confusion (as all rebranding does), but I think that any problems will clear up quickly.
I’ve noticed a few people wonder out loud if explicitly declaring that Flex is a part of the Flash brand in the product name will turn off developers who are considering Flex. We all know that a certain subset of the developer community has a lasting grudge against Flash due to its occasional misuse on the web, so this almost seems possible. However, I suggest thinking critically about that concern for a moment. Don’t you think it’s rather obvious that Flex runs in Flash Player? Is it really conceivable that a developer would never realize that Flex is really Flash-based with even the smallest amount of research? If someone is so anti-Flash that simply seeing the name of the development tool would turn them away, I would expect them to have the same reaction after a quick visit to their favorite search engine or Wikipedia to learn a little more about Flex.
Also, can we stop with the irrational fear that Flash Builder will replace the Flash authoring tool? Do you really think Adobe would decide to start ignoring the massive number of Flash content creators who draw things by hand, work with animation on the timeline, and understand symbols in the library much better than code in classes? Flash Builder is a code-centric development tool that advanced developers find more comfortable and productive. It would need years and years of development time to implement all the features needed to replace the Flash authoring tool. Not to mention the massive amounts of training Adobe would have to commit to in order to move developers and designers from one to the other. These two tools, Flash CS and Flash Builder, have many of their own unique use-cases, but they can also co-exist for the same user. I create art for my games and applications in Flash CS, while I write all my code in the current version of Flex Builder. They’re separate tools, though, and both must exist for Adobe to have any chance of making their target audiences that don’t overlap happy. You need only look at the incredible differences between the layouts of each tool to see that. For some of us, that means we need to purchase both, which may be a little expensive. Personally, I’d say that each falls under “one tool that does one thing, but does it well”, so they’re worth the price.
Changing the name of the development environment you use shouldn’t mean that you must change your job title, the experience you list on your resume (one word only, if you happen to list the tools you know), or what you write in job descriptions when you want to hire a developer. A Senior Flex Developer is still a Senior Flex Developer, regardless of whether he or she uses Flash Builder, FDT, FlashDevelop, or a simple text editor like TextMate with a command line compiler from the Flex SDK. A Flash Developer is still a Flash Developer in the exact same way. If you build Flex applications, then market your technical knowledge by only talking about Flex, Flex, Flex(!), if you feel that’s important. You don’t need to tell your clients what IDE you use, if you’re worried that the word “Flash†will cause them undue stress. Personally, I think you’re probably causing yourself too much stress by wondering how the name change will affect others.
As I’ve probably made clear, I don’t believe that the name change from Flex Builder to Flash Builder will be bad for either brand. What’s strange to me is that I’ve seen the strongest pushback coming from the Flex developers in the community. What’s up with that, guys? I consider myself one of you, but sometimes I don’t understand you. The name Flex will become much clearer because it will always be a Rich Internet Application framework that runs on Flash Player. No more IDE that’s called Flex (but does more than Flex), no more expensive server requirements. Those parts of the old Flex brand are surviving separately on their own merits now, as they should, and the framework can now be Flex without interference. The ubiquitous Flash Platform will solidify a bit more with another “Flash” branded product, and maybe the Flash name will even a little more respect from those developers who think Flash is all about animation and banner ads. I doubt that Flex will lose any respect, though. It gained ground with developers outside the Flash community because it’s a great open source framework for building RIAs, not because it somehow separated itself from Flash. Sometimes, good libraries and frameworks can change the minds of developers by being just that, good. Look at how JavaScript went from being a web toy to becoming a serious language in the last several years. I think Flex will continue to gain mindshare in a similar way, and I think it can only benefit the Flash Platform as a whole.
Josh,
Nice re-cap of the name change and the reactions of both sides. I agree that the name change is a good one. When I was first told about the change it kicked off an interesting discussion about potential ramifications for Flex developers between a group of us sitting around the table. The argument against the change, the one you are seeing some of Flex developers taking, is that by integrating the Flex Builder differentiation aspect back into the Flash brand has the potential to disenfranchise the Flex developer from a client perspective.
Here is the crux of the argument; over the last few years Flex developers have spent a lot of time trying to explain to the client base what Flex is (yes its Flash, no its not just for animation). Only recently has this understanding begun to take hold in the larger business community (well sorta). Generally, most Flex based projects are application/software development orientated requiring much more development time and code integration experience, which often requires a different skill set then more interaction development. If you look at the majority of new Flex developers they are coming from the Java/server-side of the world bringing with them their large scale application development experience and therefore they feel justified in asking for a higher price for development (both hourly and project wide).
Bringing the client back into the mix, most of them have pre-conceptions that Flash is for banner ads (a major simplification and incorrect) and if they have had experience with design agencies or Flash freelances, the average rate is lower then what many Flex developers request. This is what causes the conundrum for the Flex developer. By having the Flex separation in the builder terminology the developer can put a stake in the ground with the client and say, no… this is not just a Flash banner ad, we are making a full blown application here and this is why we require a higher rate.
This is a similar issue that many of the Ajax developers face. Why should the client pay more for an Ajax developer when they can hire a HTML developer for half the cost. This could potentially be why the browser based development community so dearly hangs onto the Ajax terminology, it defines the level of investment/experience required.
I want to re-iterate, I don’t agree with this argument. The Flex SDK is still there, and what IDE you use to build the application is not something that most clients will care about. I can see the point the other side is making that due to historical contexts, there is still a lot of explanation that is required when differentiating between a more simplistic project and a more complex project (Flex based or not). I think its an interesting argument, but one that will be set aside as time goes by…
Great, great post Josh. And I think you touch on something we possibly need to do a better job of hammering home. Flex is really an RIA framework. I think as Rich Internet Application has become sort of an overloaded term we’ve gotten away from pitching it that way. But when you stop and think about it, that’s exactly what Flex is: a framework for building RIAs. It runs on the Flash Player, it’s part of the Flash Platform, but it’s still a separate entity with its own community and its own types of developers.
I think once the tooling name change blows over we can start talking more about how Flex fits into the Flash Platform and how we’re going to brand it going forward. I think the ultimate RIA framework is a great place to start.
=Ryan
ryan@adobe.com
Hi
Nice write up. I believe, this is a great move, perhaps in short term it might cause some confusion and various other issues. But in long term, it would strengthen the Flash brand.
Time has changed, there is lot of great stuff done for Platform i.e. Flash Player (the runtime), it’s just those were being branded with different term “Flex”. I hope, when people would see the good stuff, they would change their opinion about old stuff (skip intro era and things).
It’s always good to have simple things in life.
-abdul
[...] There’s controversy/concern about Adobe’s decision to rename Flex Builder to Flash Builder. I don’t really know that I have an opinion but I can point to this and say that I think Josh Tynjala is sane. [...]
The Flex Builder you used, gone it is. Consumed by Flash Builder.
Yoda
i so disagree. There is already an eco system based on the Name/word flex. All the books and magazines and web sites get to rename so a few confused will be less confused??? please don’t make me hurl. A first timer will not know the difference between flash designer and flash builder either. So the same explanation will need to be given. And if it can’t be figured out from that first explanation….. then the IQ of the confused is too low to be doing FLEX or FLASH. First Adobe drops the Linux IDE, now they play round robin with product names. Thats two strikes against them. don’t do it.
@DBMUSE
+1
sorry I disagree. It’s a bad move. For someone like myself who doesn’t really want anything to do with flash .. other than flex itself I fell kinda protected with flex builder. It’s a flash application at the end of the day but I do think the branding makes a difference here. What will flash builder have above and beyond flex? will it have a bunch of stuff that is geared toward flash stuff?
You don’t want anything to do with Flash, but you’re okay using Flex because it has a different name? Sounds to me like you don’t want to feel uncool around the people who don’t like Flash. Stop being insecure. It’s Flash, regardless of how much you lie to yourself. That said, you’re still using Flex, and you can tell people that you use Flex all you want because the framework and SDK names aren’t changing.
What will Flash Builder have above and beyond Flex? An ActionScript project type, just like it has always had. If someone wants more creative tools, then they need to look to Flash Catalyst or Flash CS4. The point of Flash Builder is to have a developer-centric environment that creates Flash content. Destroying it with features that developers don’t need or want would be a waste of Adobe’s time, and I think they know that.
[...] Josh Talks Flash – Flex Builder to Flash Builder? Scandalous! [...]
Well it only took 6 months, but we finally got there – Link
hehe, I missed my calling as a journalist I reckon
imagine the very thing that I point out is in the FAQ. I guess I am not the only one who is thinking like this. It’s of obvious concern to Abobe.
What about clients who cringe when they hear the word Flash?
Here you have two options. You can continue to simply use the term Flex or you can educate them that Flash is now a mature development platform and not simply annoying skip intro movies. We as a community need to spread the word about what Flash really is now. Also you really have to have your head under a rock to not realize that Flex applications run in the Flash player.
its also particularly bad timing when you have new entrants in the market such as SilverLight and JavaFx. Don’t you kinda find it funny that the flex sdk will not be renamed? Explain that one.
It is interesting because I consider myself a Flash developer, however if a certain project comes along and they want to use Flex then to them I am a Flex developer. Flex is just a framework. In the end it is all AS3. Now as a brand I think this is a mistake to change, b/c many clients think there is a fundamental different between the two. In this case the developer (me) can say I know both Flex and Flash and to them it will seem impressive. Kind of like a PHP developer saying he knows both PHP and Zend.
At least the recruiters calling won’t get as mixed up. Funniest quote: “We need a Flex developer that can also understand AS3 and Eclipse FDT language.” – sigh
Forget all the jargon, if it makes a swf it needs Flash player. Both Flash and Flex makes swf’s. I used to hate it when PM’s would ask me if I was going to use Flash or Flex. What does it matter to them? In the end it’s going to be a swf file living in an html page. Focus on the biz requirements, I’ll handle the tech.
Maybe they could call it Dreamweaver Builder.
When in the next few weeks they rename Flex to FlashX and AIR to Airsh, it’ll all make sense.
Good post! It’s interesting to see the debates. Here’s my two cents, I’m probably one of those Flex developers that are pushing against the name change. Sorry guys. Why?…money. Hey, I get it. In the end it’s all swf. Frankly, as a developer, I don’t care what the name is but as a business owner the term “Flex” gave a lot of us a distinguishable new brand and sales angle for converting leads. Everyone knows what Flash is but Flex grabs a customer’s attention. It’s also a fresh way to try to convert the stubborn naysayers of the old Flash apps. I don’t want to lose that and I’m not sure why Adobe would either. In addition, I personally have thousands invested in media kits and advertising to reflect the Flex brand. Not something I particularly want to spend more time or money in changing either.
Robert, why do you have to spend time or money to change advertising and stuff? You’ll still be building Flex applications. It’s the name of the development environment that changed, not the framework. A Flex application can still be called a Flex application for years to come.
What it comes down to, is people don’t understand right now (which is a perfect demonstration as to why the name change) the difference between FLEX and FLEX BUILDER. Flex isn’t changing. It’s a framework, used to build rias, not a ria or piece of software that is useable on its own. It’s the IDE, or Flex Builder, that is changing. I think if people actually stopped and took a second to think about that difference, there wouldn’t be the chronic knee-jerk reaction of a freak-out. Josh is totally right, this is a good move on the part of adobe. Better now than later when more people would be even more confused than those who are freaking out about this as it is.
Hi Josh,
Great article. Coming from an ad background I never really understood the difference between FLEX and FLASH.
Both use the same platform and have similar coding methods, they just have a different way of approaching the same thing?
With Flex it’s easier to build RIA’s and with flash you can get more creative animation wise, etc, I get that. But in the end you can build the exact same application with Flash and Flex?
Stephan, Flex is a framework built for Flash runtimes to make building certain types of project easier. Yes, with a little persistence, someone could built the exact same thing using straight ActionScript (with or without another framework) or with the Flex framework.
For some more organic animation, nothing is stopping a Flex developer from opening up Flash Pro (or asking their resident designer to do it) and putting together some cool frame-based stuff on timeline to embed into a Flex app to give it a little personality. Not everything is possible with scripted animation, and a good team building Flex apps will know when to use other Flash tools to create assets that will improve the experience provided by a Flex application.