I'm sure it's obvious but in a company with so many interconnected parts you have interconnected sales.
So when someone who needs to target Windows, OSX and Linux and Flash provides that solution then it becomes very appealing over other technologies. If you don't support Linux then what sets you apart from using Mono or other cross OS solutions? But when you have that advantage of 3 OS's you may or may not buy a single copy of Flash Builder or IntelliJ but you most certainly buy into the whole stack of Adobe software. How is this possible? Let's say ATT wants to open a new call center in India and they need to create a call center app for data entry and phone activations. They have budget on what they can spend. They want to target Windows, Mac OS X but mostly Linux. Let's see why: If you have 5000 employees who each need a PC and operating system to run it on then using loose pricing you can determine how much it will cost per operating system. With Mac at 5000 x 600 per Mac hardware and software = 3,000,000. With Windows at 5000 x 500 for PC hardware and software = 2,450,000. With Linux at 5000 x 350 per PC hardware and software = 1,750,000. In the above I'm adding in the cost of Windows OEM softare into the mix (not deducting volume pricing but at the same time not adding in antivirus or demand for higher system requirements). With Linux you'd save around $1.2 million. On a smaller scale you save about $250 per seat. If you can run your app exactly the same on a Linux machine through AIR or the browser not to mention that same app working on Mac and Windows you have an advantage. Then that company then has a vested interest in Adobe's technologies and offerings. Developers and designers get involved and request tools to make skins or export FXG. Then the company is buying PS and AI for their teams. Then the company needs PDF and they are buying LiveCycle. Then they need to conduct meetings so guess what, there's an app for that, it's called Connect. Then the people in the company get accustomed to and familiar with Adobe products and they go off and do their own business and because of Linux it all goes round and round again. But nooooo "Linux users don't buy stuff". So OK Microsoft will get that client. BTW I'm speaking theoretically of course but I've seen it happen at companies I've worked at (companies you've heard of) and it's been fairly consistent from company to company. It's related to the technology stack [1] [2]. In the second link notice Visual Studio on the right. Do a Google images search "technology stack" and look at the images. But Adobe only has so much resources, can they afford to keep investing in Flex, Flash Builder and Flash Catalyst? A better question to ask is can they afford not too? ... :P [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_stack [2] http://www.advancedsystemsintegration.com/uploadedImages/Solutions/Microsoft_Dynamics_AX_(Axapta)/Microsoft%20Technology%20Stack%20Image.bmp On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:50 PM, saurabh jain <jainsaurab...@gmail.com>wrote: > Support for a application on Linux is very very important. I had been using > flex for application development for more than 3 years now and all the apps > that I have worked on had a condition that it should work on windows, linux > and mac (no compromise on this). > > > > -Saurabh > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Duane Nickull <du...@uberity.com> > wrote: > > > > > It seems criminal to not make it for the best OS that exists. > > > > > > <duck> > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Oh its on OS X, it just runs like crap. > > > > <duck x 2> > > > > -omar > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Saurabh > +91 80991-91166 >
