Balthaser Interview

Have you checked it out yet?

http://www.flashkit.com/tutorials/Re...07/index.shtml

I've seen a lot of comments about :fx and I'm curious to see what people think.

yep -- Tommy posted here earlier -really good stuff!

Theres another debate re:balthaser taking place at the moment at the HRC and Ive sent the link to my class. :)

Hope we see more in the future!

A

I think that interview is pretty good, it answered a few of my questions in the way I was hoping to see them answered: marketing lingo, info on demographics and their target market-things that are relavent to me because I've learned them in college.

But the one thing I have a few opinions on is the last paragraph on the last page.

From the context of both the Interview and what :FX provides, I assume that when the words "traditional, old school application" refer to Flash. I don't see what else they could refer to because what's in question here is someone sitting at home using Flash to build a web site vs. what :FX can do. The words "static tool" are used as well to describe Flash. I'm not in any way trying to scrutinize Mr. Balthasar-I'm now much more impressed at the work he and the company put into developing this system, it sure was not an easy task.

But I hardly think that Flash is a "traditional, old school application" and I don't see how it's old school and Balthasar :FX is what I guess would be "cutting edge, new school." Yes, Balthasar :FX provides something in a new format. But it's not like we're here saying "Flash as an application is on the way out, Balthasar :FX is the only answer now. "

There are plenty of people who do want to learn Flash, who do want to take a course to learn it. The comparison is made between applications taking time to learn, and the :FX system being "an easier to use system...that gets you up and running quickly." Does that neccesarily mean that putting time into something when you have a desire to learn about it is bad? Does it mean that because something is much faster and easier to use that it's the best option?
No, not always.

Here's why. The person who wants to purchase and learn Flash and realizes that along with that comes hours of learning-they're going to have both motivation and desire to do so. They'll likely want to learn a range of things, and along with the course of learning comes a large amount of gained knowledge through practice, trial and error, critiques by others, tips from others, reading books, etc.
There is no doubt that along the way they are going to learn things that will shape them as a Flash user, no doubt making them better with it as time goes on. They'll learn a bit about graphics, they'll learn about cartooning, they'll learn about Actionscript. They could be terrible with all of it, or they could be extraordinary. The primary aspect here is that they're taking the time to learn, because they have interest in doing so.

The :FX system is described as, like I said, one that "get's you up and running quickly, that empowers you." However, when you're going into something with no understanding of anything (meaning the "weekend-warrior" target market of the system") what does this system allow you to do in comparison to the ones who take the time to learn Flash? Yes, I realize that someone using :FX can sit down and create a website with graphics, animations, etc., but isn't it a disadvantage that they're lacking all the knowledge gained through learning all the aspects I described above?

I just don't agree with Flash being termed as a "traditional, old school application." I think I'm making a safe assumption that Flash is what's being compared here-I don't think it could be html because you don't have to buy a $199 program to do html. And as far as static tools go-aren't all software programs static?

I know that the :FX system is going to prove to be worthwhile for many people, it already has. I'm sure that with future versions they'll continue to improve on what they have. I just take issue with the fact that in the last paragraph, it's being presented as the best option in relation to purchasing a progam and taking the time to learn it or using the :FX system to create something. When people want to learn, they're going to do what it takes to learn something. When they want to feel confident of what they're doing in terms of something being visually pleasing, effective, easy to understand, etc., they're going to want to do whatever it takes to get there. I do realize that some people are not going to have this desire. I do realize that people with no understanding of graphics, animation or websites will use this system and create something that they're satisfied with no matter what others who are more knowledgable in this area would think of it. I also realize that when people really want to create something that is effective and meets their needs, they're going to do whatever it takes to get there. They'll find their options, and they'll go with what they have the desire to go with.

Thanks for the great interview.

mg33

Good interview, and good points, especially mike's,

I actually got a different meaning from Balthaser's reference to "old-school applications". It is fairly obvious that Mark and Balthaser were referring to flash specifically, but the eliment that Balthaser seemed to be emphasizing as "old-school" was the medium through which flash is produced, not so much flash itself. By medium, I mean the hard-copy style diskettes and cd's through which most software is still distributed.

If you think about it, the hard-copy style of medium does pose some rather important limitations, several of which Balthaser touched on. One of which is limitations on updates. It takes a lot of time to ship out update CDs to every customer who wants one, and it takes a lot more time and energy to get each of those customers through the update procedure. Even with the downloadable update files that seem to be the norm these days, you still have to get the file downloaded and installed correctly, which again takes a lot of time when you have a large user base.

On-line applications and asp models eliminate most of these limitations. Since the application itself is stored on the corprate servers, and the only thing the user has to download is the user interface (in the form of a web page in this case), updates can be made much more quickly and painlessly, which allows for the type of quickly evolving system that Balthaser described.

As for the "artistic merit" of the finished product, I put balthasar :Fx in the same basic category as swish (in reference to creating web pages, not text effects). If you have the know how, or the time to learn, you can just create everything possible in swish using flash, and make it more customized to your needs. But some people don't have the know how, or the time to learn. So there options are to either pay someone to create a top-notch site (which imposes another limitation - money), or to use a tool like this to create a site that suits their needs, and fits within their resources (both money and time).

I don't think that web-pages created using one of these type of applications can very easily compete with a professional-level, flash created web-site. I also don't think that a painting created using stencils can very easily compete with one painted from scratch by a will-trained, professional artist. Does that mean that the person using stencils is doing something wrong or degrading? Or that the stencil makers are bringing down the artistic community? Personally, I don't think it does.

Probably not the best of analogies, but you get my point ;).

[Edited by TiefighT on 04-11-2001 at 03:10 PM]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TiefighT
Good interview, and good points, especially mike's,

I actually got a different meaning from Balthaser's reference to "old-school applications". It is fairly obvious that Mark and Balthaser were referring to flash specifically, but the eliment that Balthaser seemed to be emphasizing as "old-school" was the medium through which flash is produced, not so much flash itself. By medium, I mean the hard-copy style diskettes and cd's through which most software is still distributed.

---

Possibly, but it's going to be a long time before a method such as that is adopted in a wide spread manner by different software makers.

One thing I've not even hit on yet: the fact that you have to be on-line to use their service. What if you have a slow modem, or if the times you use the Internet are during peak hours for your ISP? What if it's inconvienant for you to use the Internet for the hours it would take to create a functional site? I think that's an important aspect that's not been addressed yet. Using software, you're not dependant on using the Internet, except for uploads.

mg33

Yeah, I probably should have touched on those points in my previous post as they are all downsides to on-line apps and asp models. Basically, it all comes down to the software manufacturer weighing (sp?) the upsides and downsides of each of the models and seeing if the idea is really worth developing.

I obviously can't speak for other software companies out there, but the one I work for has been wanting to do an asp model for well over a year. The main problems from the software company's point of view is the overhead of the initial setup, and the fact that it usually requires re-writing the code into a three-tiered architecture (or something similar), which can take a huge amount of time and energy.

Regardless, it is a promising new medium, and I am sure it will get more popular as the technologies behind it (namely internet access) become more stable and accessible.

They don't even let you on if they don't detect Broad band.

At home I don't even have access to broadband becuase I choose to live in a rural comunity and comute to work. I would say that a lot of people are in the same situation.

Also the Price really irks me... its $299 per project... Flash is $399- Why would a developer pay that rate is beyound me.

How are they planning on competing with the 3'rd party SWF tool market where the going price is about $40 per tool?
Especially since they are starting to incorperate Actionscripting into these tools?

How about the SWF Export Plug Market where the SWF export is added to the tools in the next upgrade like Photoshop, Corel Draw, Adobe Illustrator, Linker Animation Stand, Poser 4, Amorphiam, Strata 3D, Maya Draw, Open Office, and Xara X?

Why are they claiming to be the first company to make a product entirely out of Flash when this is not true, they had to use some sort of generator like product, Chrom-os is built the same way but can be used offline http://www.ramraver.de and was released about the same date as This service was opened? There a plenty of tools , including Wildform SWFX, Flash Typer, and Flareworks, that were created with flash before they were even open.

How do they explain the price diffrences between Simular products like Chrom-os and Flash Blaster (Which offers free templates also)?