It's here where I'm probably getting caught up. Do you envision such an Apollo client to be a sexier, slightly more functional version of the app that renders in my browser? Or does the Apollo app contain sufficient functionality that it is the only meaningful client?I see apollo as a platform for more capable clients that are easier to develop, but that consume the same restful web services that other clients consume. Those services may dish up html, etc. perhaps with microformats, or they may dish up "pure informational" resources in xml, json, etc. and the clients would provide some other, non-html-based display/interaction engine.
If the latter, then that is what I, at least, have a problem with. If it's the former, then that tracks with your argument, but it seems there's a very fine line between a somewhat better client and the only client--a line too easily (even accidentally) crossed."Only client" would be bad, generally. Of course people *will* do this, they do it today. Many people were doing something even worse when they were on the WS-Deathstar. Fortunately the whole world seems to be disavowing they were ever even remotely in that camp. (Let the record show I never was.)
So the world seems safe now for new clients that can actually play on the web with truly restful web services. That's the whole point, what allows evolution of clients and servers to take place.
It would also help if you can describe how you're using Apollo today, and how you're keeping from making Apollo-only apps.We're just starting to use Flex today at work. I am kicking the tires at home. In both cases I hope we keep moving more in the direction above. Without getting into specifics, my work is currently in the insurance industry, which is obviously drowning in data, under-automated, burdened by layers of "legacy" systems, etc.