Sun CEO's Claim That JavaFX Is the Fastest Growing RIA Platform: Completely Untrue

Last week, Sun's (JAVA) 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 it has 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 (ONT) 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, "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? The company started this by giving out the number, using that number as the reason for its success but then held back by giving out any details. What is the company 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 be challenged. Jonathan 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 it only entered the market in December, yet already declares itself the "fastest growing" and "world's most complete open source platform" in only three months' time is really something it 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.

Disclosure: No positions

Comments

[Mio Babic:]

I think everyone in the industry welcomes another RIA option as long as it creates/promotes a constructive competition and forces everyone to continue to innovate. However, just like Dan I find hard to believe that JavFX even remotely comes close to Adobe AIR or Microsoft Silverlight. Dan, has anyone (preferably 3rd party research company) done an actual research and validated numbers we are recently getting from all three sides?

Feb 22 10:25 AM

[Akiso:]

No doubt that Sun is probably adding spin to numbers here. But why so much Sun-hate ? Should we really call-out any press announcement or blog with "fastest growing" or "world-leading" statement ?
Seems like everybody likes to beat on Sun while he is down - not a mark of courage IMO. I don't know if JavaFX will be competitive to Air or Siverlight, but as a designer I am happy to have a choice.

Feb 22 12:36 PM

[Joe Public:]

I think Dan is Right On with this post. When a supposedly leading company feels the need to try to put this much of a happy face on their communications, one wonders whate else they are spinning that we may not pick up on so easily. This speaks to a lack of integrity and/or a situation where management is drinking its own Kool-Aid. Neither is good.

I'll agree with Akiso: choices are good for developers. But what about users? Sun put JavaFX on users' PCs as part of the Java Update process. Where was the choice there? With Flash, you download it if/when you need it the first time, and it is optional. With Silverlight, it is an optional download from Microsoft Update. With JavaFX, it piggybacks on a Java Runtime security update. Sun deserves to be taken to the woodshed on this one. And I submit that Sun is down due to "suboptimal" management decisions over the years.

Feb 22 01:15 PM

[softomic:]

I'm not a big fan of Java and it does seem like a bold statement, as well as one that I wouldn't believe, either, no matter what Schwartz's numbers say. Perhaps he got his facts mixed up and should have qualified his statement with "open source."

The only two other RIA platforms that come mind, as others have noted are Flash and Silverlight. Neither of these are "open source" as far as I can tell. I used to make stuff in Flash, but haven't upgraded since Flash 4 because of the outrageous cost of the CS products. I don't know much about Silverlight except Microsoft is pushing it hard, but it is pretty new.

Honestly, unless they have something groundbreaking in the works, it would take a miracle for them to overtake the Flash.

Feb 22 08:49 PM

[MRZ:]

Jonathan as Sun CEO uses his blog to promote Sun products, nothing unexpected here. Do I expect him to exagerate and twist everything in a positive light for SUN? Hell yes!

My question is: What is your agenda?

Each developer knows that javafx will run everywhere where java runs, and that is a lot more places than Flash and Silverlight runs.

We also know that javafx is not production ready yet.

I do also believe that being opensource it has a better chance to be way more robust than any of the competition.

Feb 23 12:50 PM

[McGruff:]

Interestingly, Dan's website (streamingmedia.com) is at least partially sponsored my Silverlight/MSFT. Hmmm... Seems like that should be part of your disclosure.

Feb 23 03:15 PM

[BeachRider:]

Jonathon is drawing attention to himself with this kind of Blog entry. This is OK if he has something salient to say. It appears as though it is simply bluster, though.

He needs to use his time more judiciously. Sun needs to get back in the growth path with useful strategies coming from its cadre of CxOs.

Feb 23 05:57 PM

[Dan Rayburn:]

My response to some questions/comments:

- I don't know of any third party company that validated numbers between Adobe, Microsoft and Sun.

- I understand the difference between Java and JavaFX. I cover video specifically and that's what I care about. In Jonathan's blog post he specifically used the word "video". Show me one video application that has been adopted on the market using JavaFX.

- Microsoft, Adobe and hundreds of other vendors buy ads on StreamingMedia.com and in our magazine. But this post comes from my personal blog at BusinessOfVideo.com of which both Adobe and Microsoft are not sponsors. And if they were, that would be clearly displayed on the blog under "sponsors" for anyone to see.

- In reference to JavaFX "User 362632" says that "being opensource it has a better chance to be way more robust than any of the competition." How can you call JavaFX opensource when it does not support any open source video codecs?

Feb 23 07:10 PM

[Seeking Tru...:]

More Sun bashing at Seeking Alpha. This is getting almost comical. Nice to see Rayburn actually respond to questions posted in the comments section. That is a rarity among his colleagues at SA.

Dan - so, are you talking about RIA's or just video apps specifically? Make that clear in your opening, when you jump from complaining about Jonathan Schwartz's comments (which refer to RIA platform distributions) to JavaFX based video apps in production. Your response above is weak, as is your op-ed (please, readers, do not call label these as "articles," that would imply reasoned and balanced journalism)

Feb 24 12:51 PM

[Dan Rayburn:]

I'm talking video apps. Keep in mind that Jonathan's post was not talking about just Java. He was also talking about JavaFX, video, audio etc... he included all of that in one post, all wrapped together.

Not my fault if you want to complain that they should all be looked at individually. Clearly he is not looking at them that way. He is the one who used words like "open source", "Java", "JavaFX", "video", "audio" all in one post, tying it all together.

Feb 24 04:54 PM

[JavaFXRox:]

pay attention Dan- the most widely adopted RIA platform on PC and mobile is JAVA - wake up Danny Boy.. . to a nice steaming hot cup of JavaFX

Feb 24 05:15 PM

[Rikard Kjel...:]

I did some research recently and found the following:

-YouTube is the leader in online video with 44% of the UU video users.
-MySpace is the runner up with 7% share.
-Top 10 video steals 86% of the traffic.
-Top 10 sites all use HTTP progressive download.
-Top 10 sites all use Adobe Flash (FLV) container for video content.
-In fact, 96% of the most popular video sites in the US, use HTTP/FLV for video.

While the mobile World is still hellbent on H.264/RTP/RDP, mobile-web convergence will drive us towards HTTP/FLV, if you ask me.

Still, I think it is great that Sun is moving on an open-source initiative. Sun has proven that they can provide great software platforms (i.e. Java) and still has a lot to contribute to the industry. Varying mobile form-factors continue to present challenges to devleopers and consumers. Sun can help here. The siloed eco-systems that are emerging now (iPhone, Android, Nokia/Symbian, WinMo/Win7, etc.) are not solving the problem of fragmentation, they are increasing it. In doing so, software companies are forced to chose restricted markets for their products. This is the right problem for Sun to solve.

Feb 25 06:43 PM

[Dan Rayburn:]

Yeah what a surprise, more crazy On2 investors who want to take over the comments section proclaiming how good On2 is. You've only posted two comments ever on SeekingAlpha.com and both of them are on this post, saying how good On2 is.

Great argument you have there for H.264, which you say can't be open source since it has license fees. Since when does a license fee determine if something is open source? Clueless.

I have no stake in any of these companies, don't trade stocks and post under my own name. Can't say the same thing for you Mr. "JavaFxRox".

These On2 investors who want to bash anything that does not say "On2 is great" are just weak.

Feb 27 12:04 AM