Sun's CEO Claims JavaFX As The Fastest Growing RIA Platform: Completely Untrue

Last week, Sun's CEO Jonathan Schwartz declared on his blog that Sun's JavaFX is "the fastest growing RIA platform on the market", based on Sun announcing that it had shipped its 100 millionth JavaFX runtime. While that sounds like a big number that everyone should be impressed by, we're not. In fact, it only makes Sun look like they have no idea what is going on in the industry.

Anyone who has read my blog long enough knows I question numbers from all vendors and I hate proclamations based on marketing fluff. Sun is new to the RIA market yet apparently, has already declared themselves the winner, even though no JavaFX based video apps are being used in any wide scale adoption. Not a single one.

I have to wonder how the CEO of Sun is allowed to make such bold, inaccurate statements without his blog posts first being reviewed by someone at Sun who is in better touch with reality. Jonathan goes on to say in his post that, "The Java platform continues to provide the world's most complete open source platform for a rich internet." Is he serious? JavaFX does not even support H.264. How can you talk about having the world's most complete open source platform when your own platform does not support H.264 for video applications? Saying you want to support it in the future does not count.

Not to mention that because JavaFX supports different video codecs on different platforms, it makes it impossible to "write once, run everywhere", which as a result, dilutes one of Sun's key marketing messages. In addition, since On2's Flix software application is the only tool that can encode video for JavaFX today, it will be difficult for a large number of designers and developers to create video content for the Sun platform.

JavaFX has a limited set of APIs and to date, Sun considered only the basic scenarios, not all of the complex and difficult scenarios that customers may encounter. As a result, developers may run into some difficulty when trying to build complex RIAs with early versions of JavaFX. Case in point, look at all of the comments on Jonathan's post from Java developers and designers complaining about the lack of features and tools. One commenter even asks how Sun can call this the world's most complete open source platform when as he says, "you haven't even released it for the open source OSes. Not even your own Solaris."

Adding to the problem is also the questionable designer-developer collaboration story.  Looking at an early video of the Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator plug-ins (formerly referred to as Project Nile), it appears that support for "round tripping" may be limited or non-extant.  While it is clear that designers will be able to export graphic elements to be used in NetBeans (or Eclipse), it is unclear how designers will be able to take projects developed in NetBeans and customize the UI, add skinning, etc.  Since NetBeans has no visual designer, making simple changes to design elements may be tedious for developers. 

Jonathan also says in his post that, "And most importantly - JavaFX allows content owners to bypass potentially hostile browsers, to install applications directly on user desktops and phones." I don't know what he means by "hostile browsers", but I have a suggestion for the definition. Trying viewing Sun's own javafx.com website using Safari or Firefox on the Mac. The browsers constantly force quit or I'm given slow script error messages from Sun's SimpleVideoPlayer prompting my broswer to ask me if I want to stop the script. That's my definition of a product that makes my browser hostile. When I do get lucky and the javafx.com site works, the demos I get look horrible. The video is choppy, completely pixelated and takes more than twenty seconds to even load.

Getting back to the 100M download number that Sun says is such a milestone, how about Sun explaining where that number comes from? What about the bundling of JavaFX via the Java Updater? Is Sun trying to say that of the 100M downloads, each person who initiated the download was specifically trying to get the JavaFX runtime? As one comment on Jonathan's post says, "what did you guys count as JavaFX downloads, are these downloads that were initiated by an application requiring JavaFX, downloads counting visits to the JavaFX main site, or does it also include any upgrades in existing Java runtimes?" That's a great question and one we should not have to be asking. Did Sun think no one was going to ask? They started this by giving out the number, using that number as the reason for their success but then held back by giving out any details. What are they hiding? Do the numbers not look as good once we find out where the 100M comes from? You can't put out numbers like that, declaring a success and expect us to just take it at face value.

Now if Jonathan's post was simply we've had 100M downloads and we're building out this platform to compete, no problem. Great, welcome to the party. But to call out the other RIA competitors by name and mention them in the same vein as JavaFX, as if they are equal, is flat out asking to challenged. Jonathan's says in his post, "what you can do with Flash is comparable to Silverlight, and again comparable to JavaFX." Please, stop the marketing spin. Why does the entire post feel like Sun is trying to talk to us as if we are all dumb and don't know what is really taking place in the market.

Anyone who has read my blog long enough knows I hit back hard at any vendor who wants to lead with marketing fluff and gives out numbers backed up by no details. It's bad for the industry and bad for the vendor doing it. Nothing good comes from this practice. This is not personal to Sun or to Jonathan. But the simple fact that Sun acknowledges that they only entered the market in December, yet already declare themselves the "fastest growing" and "world's most complete open source platform" in only three months time is really something they should know better than to try and convince us of.

To Sun I say welcome to the space. Happy to see another competitor in the RIA arena but you need to convince us of your success based on the adoption of JavaFX based applications, functionality of the JavaFX platform and let content owners and designers dictate what they deem to be a successful offering in the market. Anything outside of that is just marketing fluff.

Note: It should be mentioned that I contacted Sun before this post to see if they wanted to provide me with any more details on Jonathan's post or setup a time for me to speak with him directly. They were very responsive but were out of the country at the Mobile World Congress show and said they usually don't comment on what Jonathan posts in his blog. But if Jonathan or Sun wants to reply to this post, I will publish any official response from them exactly as I am sent it.

Comments

[FFD]

To do Jonathan a little justice, note that in his statement "The Java platform continues to provide the world's [...]" he refers to Java, not JavaFX.

Apart from that, it is sad to see him so completely detached from reality, instead of leading a dialog with his user base. He somehow reminds me of the political leaders of good old Eastern Europe. Remember "The network is the computer"? Amazon took this market, now called cloud computing. Remember "Thin clients"? Adobe took this market, and after 10 years Sun still is not able to offer a competitive product for it. Very sad, taking into account that for a long time, they had the greatest engineers of all.

[Vincent]

Marketing needs to stay simple. Here are more detailed explanation.

I downloaded Java update (which include JavaFX) 10 days after it was released. I had to wait 2 years for Silverlight after they released it.

Reason #1: Silverlight was not correctly working in my browser and platform until V2.0 ( 1.5 years later).
Reason #2: Silverlight does not work out of the browser still today.

In order of developer preference for RIA still today:
#1 Flash, #2 Java (including javafx), #3 Silverlight, #4 Other plug-ins.

Developers have been developing java and flash apps since the 90s. Now its in cell phones to blue-ray dvd players, to browser to desktop. That is the adoption we are talking about. Real questions are: Silverlight runs where? And since when? What is its future platform target?

All these questions are already answered with JavaFX. Adoption follows when leadership delivers. Marketing is still marketing. Ask yourself what Nokia is doing. There were talks no delivery for Silverlight and Nokia, no action.

Nokia, Sony, LG, that is your growth. Only future good decisions and action can decide a platform's sake. Not marketing candy.

[Geoff]

"Sun is new to the RIA market yet apparently, has already declared themselves the winner, even though no JavaFX based video apps are being used in any wide scale adoption. Not a single one."

Why do you continue to equate RIA and video?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Internet_application

I don't know any developers who would tie the definition of an RIA to the capability to play video and the dominant RIA "framework" is HTML+Javascript.

[Simon Brocklehurst]

You wrote:

"Anyone who has read my blog long enough knows I question numbers from all vendors and I hate proclamations based on marketing fluff."

Cool. Please can you point me to your similar analysis of Adobe's announcement of 100M downloads of AIR as of the end of January this year? I used the search box in your blog, and I couldn't find it.

You wrote:
"It only makes Sun look like they have no idea what is going on in the industry."

Does it? A comparison with Adobe might be useful here. I could easily be wrong on this, but as I understand it, Adobe has an analagous strategy to Sun's in terms of getting distribution of their AIR platform via bundling. So, while Sun bundles JavaFX with the JRE, Adobe bundles AIR with their own widely distributed products, such as Acrobat reader.

Given that Sun has been bundling JavaFX for six or seven *weeks*, and Adobe has been bundling AIR for six or seven *months*, I think it might be fair to call it "extraordinary" that JavaFX hit the 100M download mark so soon. It might say something about the relative distribution powers of the two platform. Or it might not - we'll need to see more data over time to know for sure. For example, let's see who's first to 200M downloads.

You're right, by the way, that video support isn't a strong suit in the current version of JavaFX. Clearly, the benchmark there is Flash. So the JavaFX team should know what they're aiming for in terms of performance and overall capability. The question is how far, and how fast the team can innovate.

[00]

You look very feeble by reading your blog. I don't know of your intention by smear others without even having second thought on what you are writing.

[HankMehle]

You clearly have an agenda, and you don't even provide a table of figures. Everyone knows you have a hidden bias and that makes you the saddest blogger out there. As one commenter already stated, why the focus on video? Schwartz didn't say video, you did. But we all know that's your agenda. You explicitly mention H.264, but not Sorenson, or others. WTF? Phoney baloney.

[HankMehle]

Dan - you also claim to speak for the entire community? "convince US"??? Please. Does your ego keep you up at night?

[HankMehle]

Simon - why do you think Dan rails against On2, yet wasn't it the VP6 codec that catapulted Flash video to leadership on the net practically overnight? You mention Flash as the video RIA to beat. Yes, I know they support multiple codecs, including H.264.

Isn't the On2 codec the also the "cross platform" codec in JavaFX? Do you know why Dan rails against the codec that put Flash video on the map and is now causing a stir with its inclusion in JavaFX?

While various codecs have their strengths and weaknesses, I find this a strange position to take for a man who claims to be an authority on the business of video. Surely On2 is not making a mint, at least right now, but who in this space is raking it in? It's curious that this common element of success is trashed by Dan Rayburn.

Call me crazy.

[JT]

Wow, Dan! Is Sun it that you hate or is it On2 Technologies? Perhaps you hate Sun for using On2's codecs. This is your second blog where you have harped about Sun not using H.264 yet. In the first one you mentioned that you spoke with officials at Sun and they said H.264 would be there in the future. Has it not happened fast enough for you? Give it time like Simon stated. If I remember right, Microsoft and Adobe\Macromedia didn't start off with H.264 either. You come off sounding like a pathetic poster child for MPEGLA. Do they give you a paycheck too?

[Super Dude]

I agree that this post is confusing RIA and Video on the web. But anyway, here are a few facts about Adobe Flash Video on the web:

- after it became clear that multiple projects (Wowza, Red5, Mammoth, RubyIzumi) had reverse engineered the proprietary (and IMHO horrible) RTMP protocol for Flash streaming, Adobe recently announced that it will open up RTMP (not yet available).

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200901/012009RTMP.html

- Adobe of course will continue to (attempt) control all internet video using the proprietary RTMPE protocol.

- Flash H.264 support itself is proprietary, there are no clients other than Flash Player 9 / 10 that can support it.

- It is pretty clear that if anyone creates a Flash RTMPE / H.264 client, Adobe lawyers will descend brandishing the DMCA.

- I don't like the on2 monopoly over internet video at all, they are behind Adobe also, not just Sun:

http://support.on2.com/h264_faq.php

The web is supposed to be built on open technologies, it is sad to see all this happen.

[John Dowdell]

"The web is supposed to be built on open technologies...."

You might start by opening up your identity there, mate. ;-)

jd/adobe

[Dying Sun]

The article is right on the money. Nobody cares one whiff about Sun which is why they have been in decline for over 10 YEARS.

Further no media company cares about Sun. They don't know media, they don't have a historical investment in media, and they aren't thought of as a media solution.

I'll go even further, it will be a miracle if Sun remains a stand alone company. They are either done or going to get acquired in the next couple of years.

[Dan Rayburn]

To Hank and JT:

I think what is really interesting about all of your comments is that neither of you commented on anything pertaining to what this post was actually about, except for the one mention of On2 in the post. If On2 was not mentioned, I bet you would not be commenting.

That means that YOU have a vested in these companies mentioned, not me. Yet you want to shift that focus away from yourselves to me claiming that I have some sort of "hidden agenda". Easy for you to say, but what agenda do I have? Back your words up with facts. I don't get compensated or paid directly in any way by On2, MPEGLA, Adobe or Microsoft. You want to disagree with my words, go ahead, but you'll have to do a lot better in your argument by simply implying I have an agenda.

So I'll make you both this offer. Prove that I have some sort of "agenda" financially on this subject and I'll give you access to my blog and let you take it over. You can write whatever you want, tell everyone how much you love On2 and write posts all day long about how you think I have an agenda. I've got nothing to lose.

You guys claim I don't like Sun or On2, which is not the case, yet by your own arguments you show you don't get it. On2's codecs are NOT open source. Sun is saying that Java is the "....most open source platform...". So why does it matter that JavaFX support On2, that's not open source. It's that simple.

Hank, you need to read Sun's post clearer. You claim "Schwartz didn't say video", yet his post says, "to creative professionals and non-coders working with audio, video and high performance graphics". Uh, that's video. And since you are coming to my blog, titled, Business Of Video, you clearly know video is my focus. Yet you ask me "why the focus on video"? What part of this blog's subject are you missing?

[Dan Rayburn]

Hey Simon,

You ask "Please can you point me to your similar analysis of Adobe's announcement of 100M downloads of AIR as of the end of January this year? I used the search box in your blog, and I couldn't find it."

I have questioned Adobe's numbers before, as far as the Flash Video Player goes, but have done so in the comments section on other blogs, including one of Adobe's at http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/

I did not question Adobe's AIR downloads numbers as no where, that I saw, did Adobe come out and declare themselves the winner like Sun did, simply due to a download total. Adobe has creditability in the market with developers, designers and content owners as far as Flash video goes, where as Sun has none with any of those users.

That said, I am working on a post about the numbers Adobe uses when they talk about Flash video player penetration and am working with them to get them to reveal more of the collection method used. I'd made some progress with that and they have opened up some of that to me so I hope to have all of that posted soon. Thanks.

numbers they use for the Flash player and

[Rob Powell]

Wow, who would have thought there was a hornets nest under that fluff number. For what it's worth, being the "fastest growing" anything is generally just spin for "currently the smallest", the growth rate being calculated in percentage terms. Also, number of downloads is a poor measure of popularity - as a developer I download just about every such kit I come across, just in case I might want to mess with it sometime. I rarely do.

[jhm212]

Hello Dan, I thought I was going to pass here, but after seeing your response to Hank and JT, I realized that a good argument is probably very under rated. I hope you don't mind a subjective opinion about this article and your 'Business of Video' blog in general. After all, aren't blogs nothing more than subjective opinion anyway? It's your opinionated hypothesis on some video issues, that you appear to be so ill equipted to speak to, that your guests laugh so loudly.....yes, many of them firmly believe your blog carries an 'agenda'!

JavaFX is just entering the RIA battle, do you see it unreasonable that Sun's CEO would tout the 100M runtime milestone? Who are you trying to kid, don't ADBE and especially MSFT, also 'bundle'. Your opening sentence neglected to mention that Schwartz's statement was based on a 'download rate' but instead you choose to extend that to Sun having no idea of what is happening in the industry? While it is valid to question how the download numbers were derived, does any one really care why you 'HATE' any company's proclamations. Schwartz announced JavaFX as a player in the game and never said 'winner', you did! Is it any wonder that many of your readers think you have an 'agenda'!! I have to wonder how the CEO of InfoToday would allow you to make such bold, inaccurate statements without your blog posts first being reviewed by someone who is in better touch with reality!!!

You continue to blast Sun for not supporting H.264. Why is that such a staple in your agenda? Please clearly spell out your reasons for such a statement. The average consumer doesn't care about the video codec, they just want to see HD video any where, any time they choose. The current industry workflow has yet to embrace H.264 for several valid reasons (even SM has acknowledged this), but your post assumes that H.264 is the 'end answer' for JavaFX. Does H.264 guarentee success or a lower cost structure? Again, from a readers perspective, an 'agenda' driven statement. Assume for a moment that JavaFX wants to build a presence through the existing 2 billion mobile devices, the H.264 device fees would not do the initiative any favors out of the gate.

Getting back to the code that drives JavaFX, it is indeed a work in progress, but at this point isn't Silerlight also. Flash has laid the foundations to dominate the RIA space for many years, but give some respect to the players battling for second place. Here's a question that I would expect an 'online video expert' to take on.....as Silverlight3's 'Smooth Streaming' now takes on H.264, what is left for VC-1? What's the future hold for VC-1 and how many major 'codec' players are really left in the game?

As you are recognized as a 'foremost industry expert' and 'online video guru', how is it that you haven't recognized Move Networks accomplishments. You were first to announce that they cut 30% of the the workforce in a move toward profitability, but you didn't know they were behind ESPN360. This is probably the best exhibition of streaming video on the planet and you weren't aware of how it was happening? Move's 'Inauguration' video was a hit globally, but you refused to acknowledge that it was VP7 through the Move plugin that was best enjoyed, even by you! Instead you went to the On2 Technologies web site blog, spewing your thoughts and insulting a few participants there that did? Any professional gentlemen would have later apologized for such an outburst......and you wonder why some of your readers speak of an agenda?

OK, call for speakers/presenters, announce the webinars and sell out all the conferences, great...but do you really need to sell your authored 'expert papers', through your blog, that you will personally fax within minutes.......or is your blog really just about the monetization of Dan Rayburn? You have contributed to the video industry and for that you are acclaimed, but I question the time you spend in research and why you are so enamored with H.264 in your agenda? Tim Siglin recently wrote a piece on H.264 licensing that actually came across quite comical. In reading his article, do you believe any one really thinks it's just a 'perception' that the H.264 terms are complicated? Why is it that he didn't mention that the H.264 licensing is strictly a 'use' tax, it doesn't buy encoders or SDK's, just the right to use them bought from some one else. Tim's 'Labyrinth' article took twice as many words as the actual H.264 licensing terms document itself, yet left out so much! He didn't even touch the 'manufacturers of encoders or decoders', is it that H.264 support in Flash, Silverlight3 and DiVX aren't relevant in understanding the licensing equation. Why does he use 'we' several times in the article? Why no mention of the $5M annual cap? Why no mention of the additional licensing required through VIA for the audio? For heavens sake, no mention of the device royalties? He throws it out to the 'proprietary codecs' to lay their cards on the table but can't provide the 'simple' facts for the 'current term' let alone the next? And you print this kind of crap in your magazine, no proof readers, no tech experts to see the huge holes......right, no agenda!!

In this term of licensing, H.264 bypassed free internet broadcast. We ALL know what's coming in the next contract, to keep it 'simple', internet broadcast will match the new 'Free TV' royalties. The question here then becomes, what constitutes a 'broadcast market' is it by country or by county and province? Already, products deployed for different countries, each require seperate licenses through MPEGLA. You won't acknowledge, it's the companies that 'deliver' the video to the end user that pay the 'Free TV' royalties, with the addition of 'internet broadcast' the CDN's will acquire the new royalty burden. The hosting providers will just pass on the additional costs, how is this a good thing for streaming video? You make a hoot about states 'taxing' streaming video but fail to acknowledge what MPEGLA is about to lay on the industry........right, no agenda!!

Your readers are not fools and to see your continued oppionated attacks on a few select companies and complete omission of others, clearly suggests you post with an agenda. Your blog has been surpassed by a dozen others for their prompt play of factual and pertinant news. Pesonally, I don't care who or what you write about, but as a professional journalist, your owe your readers less bias, less 'selective omission' and at least 'data' to support your far too obvious 'agendas'!!

[Dan Rayburn]

Great, more irrational On2 investors commenting.

I really don't feel the need to respond to much of your comments but I will make a few points.

First, all of my blog posts and comments are under my own name. I have my cell number listed on my home page, along with me e-mail and all of my job titles. I have disclosed multiple times in writing that I don't buy, sell or trade stocks ever. I stand behind my work, answer all calls and e-mails and have nothing to hide.

Some folks like you who choose to post without your own name, without saying who you work for, without saying what stocks you own are the one's who have a hidden agenda. If you have nothing to hide, then why not disclose all of the things I have? It's because you have a vested interest in On2. My post was about Sun, yet if I had not mentioned On2 in it, you would not have even commented. You benefit based on On2's stock, I don't.

Second, my blog is not owned or operated by Info Today and they do not review the editorial. If you see the text at the bottom of each page it says "The views expressed by Dan Rayburn are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Today, Inc."

You ask "how is it that you haven't recognized Move Networks accomplishments." I have. Do a search for Move Networks on my blog and you will see various posts I have done on the company and their work.

You also say "but do you really need to sell your authored 'expert papers', through your blog, that you will personally fax within minutes.......or is your blog really just about the monetization of Dan Rayburn?"

All research analysts promote their papers via their blogs and the web. That's the way it is done, you don't like it fine, but that's a standard practice in the industry. But why would you even care? The report I am promoting is about content delivery networks, not formats, codecs, or video platforms. You have an agenda for On2, but the report is not about that business. One has nothing to do with the other.

You ask me all these questions about an article someone else wrote on StreamingMedia.com which I don't even mention in this post you are commenting on. Why are you asking me questions about an article I didn't write, that is not even on my blog? More proof you have an agenda with On2 and that anyone who writes anything about H.264 must be wrong. Go ask the author who wrote it or the Editor of the StreamingMedia.com website, which is not me.

You don't like my blog, no problem. Don't read it.

[ForexTeacher]

I just want to let you know that I have benefited from the information here. Thanks a lot.

[TraderForex]

I have the same opinion as yours on this. What you said is true.

[Mubariz]

Does anyone have the market share of the various RIA technologies as of 2008-2009?? I would love to have those figures...especially of FLASH, SILVERLIGHT, JAVAFX and AJAX

[aminosauren]

Please can you point me to your similar analysis of Adobe's announcement of 100M downloads of AIR as of the end of January this year? I used the search box in your blog, and I couldn't find it.

[Thomas Auzinger]

I suppose Jonathan Schwartz' comment was geared more towards developers as in "develop for the JavaFX platform". I think it's less important why the download was performed than the fact that there are now 100 million devices around the world that support JavaFX right away. I'm looking to replace an ActiveX application with something browser agnostic and I have to say I'm very impressed with what I have seen for what I need. For interactive graphics it's better than Java, SVG, VML, or HTML5, and I can still interact with the page or the server side. Oracle has also made a firm commitment towards JavaFX, so I suppose it's here to stay, and I don't need video at all. Thanks for your blog though, it's a valuable data point.