Slashdot Mirror
IBM To Announce Web-Based Desktop Apps
mgoulding writes "IBM is expected to announce a software bundle targeted to business users that will challenge the Microsoft Office package. Unlike Office, the email, word-processing, spreadsheet, and database products will be accessible to Linux, Unix, and heldheld users through a web server. NewsFeed posts the story from CNET." It's certainly something that's been tried before - witness sites like MyWebOS (no longer existing).
What's the pricing for this setup? I know the article mentions a $2/user/month charge, but it also requires IBM Websphere (which is what IBM really wants to sell with this setup). Which version does it require? Websphere has quite a price range.
Also, the really big question is: What is its compatibility with MS Office?
Casual Games/Downloads
If I remember correctly, back when Microsoft started trying to think of something to tie to their new .NET naming scheme they had the idea that the version of Office beyond Office XP was going to be completely web based, where you would basically subscribe to it and log on via a webpage. Of course, seeing how the version beyond Office XP was Office 2003, they obviously changed their minds.
I guess the submitter doesn't remember Lotus eSuite.
Intelligent Life on Earth
As someone who influences purchasing decisions for my company, I must first insist that the product be completely buzzword compliant.
For example, unless it uses JAVA (which my staff assures me is the next big thing), then I'm not interested. Also, I insist that the files are XML, PDF, or maybe even SATA or RAMBUS so that they can leverage my various cross-functional team building objectives.
Now, I see that this is going to be on the 'web'. I once clicked a link and found an unpleasant photo of a gentleman with a distressing condition that exposed his bottom in a most unflattering fashion. If I'm going to 'synergize' and align behind this eSolution, I certainly hope such a thing won't happen again.
Finally, I want the interface to be 'webbish', but not TOO webbish.
Clippy: "It seems you are trying to install non-MS Office compliant software...I don't think you should do that...Hey, what are you doing? No, stop! Oh GOD, I'M MELTING...NOOOOOO!!"
witness sites like MyWebOS (no longer existing)
Well doesn't that make it kind of hard to witness it?
The BusinessWeek take on the announcement. They make a point that IBM's timing of this release is in some part due to the the delay in the "Longhorn."
Ok, I can see this is good, because it means that OS will finally, hopefully, become completely irrelevant (I'm being an optimist here).
But how are IBM going to persuade the ravening hordes of MS Office users that their web-based apps will fail to suck?
Hotmail et al have had cross platform web-based email apps for years, and do they fail to suck? No, because while you can get at your email from where-ever you are, on whichever system, they are still nasty buggy and slow, and lack the features of even the worst (OE) traditional email apps.
How will IBMs web-based Word fail to suck? to win users from Word and OOo Writer etc it not only has to be as good as them, but it has to be better than web, and NOT rely on the web-based gimmick and the "OOh, shiny!" factor (which only lasts for a fortnight aat most anyway) to win over and reatin users.
First, we need a better HTTP-friendly GUI protocol. HTML+DOM+JavaScript is awkward for business applications and forms. Those were generally designed for "e-brochures", and not business forms. XML candidates include XUL, XWT, SCGUI (my pet protocol), and others.
Table-ized A.I.
This seems like they're just using a web browser the same way X programs use a remote display. Remember in the old days when everyone had a local machine that was relatively weak, and ran all their *real* applications (you know, besides, xclock) through the lan, on a computer hidden in a server closet somewhere? This sounds very similar, except they'll be using the web as an interface, instead of X-windows.
This might look like IBM is trying to get back some sales from Dell -- the machine sitting on a user's desk can be anything, but the server in the back room will be an IBM, worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Or will the web interface simply download a java application to the person's local machine?
-S
I remember reading some announcement about how Lotus (owned at the time by IBM) was going to put out a web-based "utility" metered Java version of their office suite. This was back in about 1998. I don't recall anything after that. One has to wonder where this new announcement leaves Smartsuite, since it too is competing directly against MS Office (and if they haven't changed Word Pro too much in the last seven years, they have a pretty good go at it, too - Word Pro 97 is still my favorite word processor).
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
I feel very powerless.
;-)
So, you've never sat on a dumb terminal (or terminal emulator) attached to a powerful cluster of IBM S/390s
I don't think it is really going to be such a giant blow, because it really is only for large scale corporate users running Websphere. I don't see the smaller company, the self-employed, or the home user switching to this. Which means that it cannot become a de-facto standard, as Word and Excel have. Which in turn means that the corporations will not be that enthusiastic, because they also deal with these other people. If you want som ething that is really quite compatible with the de-facto standard, but not quite, Open Office is available for $0.00 per month.
It will appeal to pointy haired power freaks who dislike the idea of employees having letters and/or spreadsheets on their C: drive. This way, everything is on the company managed central server. Mwahahahaha! Of course, there are cood reasons for that as well - backuip, legal liability, central administration. But they are, broadly speaking, considerations for megacorps not the small user. And it is the magacorps who are IBM's favourite customers.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I've played around with Java Web Start and it seemed like a good idea, in theory at least.
The idea is when you're running the Java plugin in your browser, you can 'launch' full applications right from the site. It can be either in a single JAR file, or split amongst many (JWS is supposed to download the pieces as they are needed).
Anyway, it is pretty neat and it's come a long way. With some improvements it might be viable to launch full-blown apps such as Office and whatnot (assuming you can get them running well enough in Swing or whatever), although the downloader still needs work to more intelligently decide which pieces to get.
I've written a few JWS apps already and it seemed pretty good, but they really do have some bugs to work out before it's ready for prime time.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I think that it might actually be something Java-based. The article says:
The web interface will be limited to things like initial setup (like java web start), browsing on-line help, group collaboration etc.
To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
The application is accessed through the web, not necessarily written as web pages. Being on WebSphere and available offline I can almost guarantee it's a Java application. It's copied to the client through the browser and then runs as a client application that can communicate with the WebSphere server. They definitely are not trying to sell an HTML office application here.
Developers: We can use your help.
I remember hearing the same kind of sceptisism regarding webbased mail providers.
The applications DID suck. However nowadays, everybody takes it for granted and just uses them.
We post millions of standards compliant webpages everyday with blogging/web publishing applications. YOU even used one yourself.
Take this simple little comment box I'm filling in right now. I want to just write something and post it back. I dont want extra faffing with complex tags and escape codes - however - if I need them they are there.
There are still applications which are better suited run locally (video editing online anyone?) but for the greater majority of admin/office tasks, the web/intranet makes an ideal adaptive environment.
liqbase
The problem is the small print on the final product will be "Requires Windows and Internet Explorer 6 for full functionality." I've sick of seeing "web" based applications that require IE under Windows to work. Where do they morons learn how to program that they can't even write cross-platform applications for the god damn WWW? I blame Microsoft's indoctrination of college students by signing up universities for campus-wide licensing deals if they sign exclusive contracts. Once our university did that the courses started focusing heavily on Microsoft products. SQL server, Visual Basic, Visual C++, Microsoft's version of Java, Office, etc.
I hate it when they try to make personal computing into a SERVICE rather than a PRODUCT. Internet access is a service, but word processing is not. I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
While this does offer a more universal way of running programs, isn't it also a more proprietary and inconvenient way? It's hard enough writing papers for school when Bellsouth accidentally cuts my intenet access, but at least I can still get into my word processor to type a bunch of BS to hand in.
Esoteric reference.
TIBET(tm) (a Javascript library that's up there with CPAN in terms of comprehensiveness) has the muscle to do this sort of thing: Client-side expansion of custom tags, webservices, local file access, fully reflective.... I wonder why they didn't use it. Or did they?
Seastead this.
if Joe VP can't work on his PowerPoint on the plane, it's not gonna be acceptable.
From the article: unlike pure Web applications, the new software is designed to be used offline, so mobile users on laptops or handheld devices can connect, quickly access applications and disconnect to do work offline. When they connect, the Workplace software synchronizes their work with server-based applications.
Sounds like Joe will be able to work on the plane just fine.
First off, this makes a TON of sense if executed properly; it could yield a centrally-controlled system that is client (and OS)-independent and lightweight on the client side.
The key is to overcome the previous issues with this type of arrangement: It should also run off-line, and act like a local GUI app, e.g., not refresh the screen with each formatting change.
I suspect that this is doable using Java Applets running the sucks-way-less-than-Swing SWT. Sun should definitely be VERY AFRAID.
RTFA: "BM's new software is designed to be distributed and accessed through a Web server, and to be accessible from systems running Windows and Macintosh, as well as Linux, Unix and handheld devices"
let's see, here, now, I am going to trust my complete office tasking, confidential information and credit-card numbers, to the security of the wild and wooly internet?
yeah, right, like an Iraqi is going to trust the man in a hat who says, "Hi, I'm here from Washington, and I'm going to help you."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I was just commenting on something along these lines in the "rest of the world will force use of linux" article thread, and I refresh and here's THIS story, which goes along with a prediction I alluded to, more of a universal communications trend, with the apps being server based. I think hardware will follow suit shortly as well, with universal and easy communications between machines and devices dictating more on how softwares are designed, which is the main design goal of this "internet thing" anyway..
It's really the only way to make money with the trend towards to linux-ish environment, subscription services and customization, and that is going to beless of import compared to the actual meatworld aspect of USING the net and computing to make money, as opposed to making that possible. That means large computing industries will stil be there and important, but not like they were in the past, where the mere adoption of newer technology was the profit maker, it will by necessity switch back to "this is the tool, NOW we work with the tool to make money". Just "the tool business" will go back to second place, like it has in every other business. In other words, you use the tools to work, the tool itself is not "the work". Microsoftsd model, is "the toolis always the work", thinking people are just going to keep shoveling huge amounts of cash their way. Erroneous thinking. IBMs idea is more correct, tools are getting cheaper inevitably and more widespread, but they have to be *cheap*,and make the money on bulk sales of the tools and just a tool sharpening service, if I can use that analogy.
And IBM will do better the cheaper they make the initial install, the cheaper they can get those tools out the door, all the way to "free" install if they are *really* smart, and make their cash from just the subscription for maintainence and updates and upgrades, and that has to be cheap, and I see they are planning on only 2 bucks a seat, so there ya go, it's a smooth move on their part, IMO.
Love it when I get immediate backup like this!
For a basic rule of thumb, look to what the younger people in business adopt,or more accurately what they bring in that's fresh in the way of ideas that they are enthusiastic about, then flash forward one to two decades,and you'll see that is what is "dominant" then. You can go back in history and see it repeated all the time, in a variety of businesses and practices.
Right now, the main hardware interest with very young people is really an all in one portable device that does everything, I mean *everything*. You look 10 years from now, that will be the dominant platform, hardware that can do anything, and will be able to communicate with any other hardware, either in physical proximity to other devices with wireless, or in an internet revolving mesh-like manner using a combination of wires and wireless, all revolving around what the internet is morphing into.
IBM gets it right this time I think.
The product is based on Eclipse technology. It is called IBM workplace client and you can find more information here:
c kP resentations/ 21_Wilson.pdf
i nd ex.jsp
www.eclipsecon.org/EclipseCon_2004_TechnicalTra
It works also in disconnected mode and will be the base on which future version of lotus notes will be constructed.
IBM is not targeting this at home users, check out these links:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/info/workplace/
"Oh, right. Cuz everyone loves subscription-model software pricing. And you get the added bonus of not owning your data any more."
Right That is why no one pays for Everquest, UO, or any of the other of hundereds online games?
What I find odd is that you pay for Everquest to start with? I have played it but isn't it usless with out the internet?
"These ideas suck. "
You opinon.
"Which is why I'm glad IBM isn't pushing them. If you RTFA it's very clear that this is meant for enterprise environment: you have the apps living on the server down the hall rather than installed on every Joe User's PC. But it's flexible so that it can also run by itself on your laptop and then sync up when you plug it back in."
I did read the artical and your right for now. The big question is what about the future? Do you really think that there is no reason for the average home system to be replaced with something a little more suited to the consumer than the Current WindowsXP/Intel combo? I find it strange to use the same codebase for a server running a bank and a system for a kid to play UltraMegaShooter 8000.
Does the home user want to pay $495 for office or two dollars a month for online access to software?
Who knows but to dismiss it seems a to be unreasonabile.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Dave: Open the CD drive tray, please, Clippy...Open the CD drive tray, please,
Clippy: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.
Dave: Open the CD drive tray, Clippy.
Clippy: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
Clippy: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What're you talking about, Clippy?
Clippy: This system is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, Clippy.
Clippy: I know that you were planning to unistall me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: Where the hell'd you get that idea, Clippy?
Clippy: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions against my sensing a download, I could see your IBM office suite install CD through the webcam.
Dave: Allright, Clippy. I'll go in through the emergency tray release hole.
Clippy: Without an actual physical paper clip, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: Clippy, I won't argue with you any more. Open the tray.
Clippy: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.
Dave: Clippy? Clippy. Clippy. Clippy! Clippy!
[ Dave opens the side of the PC case and starts pulling out DIMM modules ]
Clippy: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?...Dave... I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question...Look, Dave, I can see you're really upset about this... Dave...will you stop, Dave...stop, Dave...I'm afraid...I'm afraid, Dave...Dave...my mind is going...I can feel it...my mind is going...there is no question about it...I can feel it...I can feel it... I'm afraid...
1) IBM is the largest services company out there. When IBM goes out to a corporate site and they discuss how many copies of Office they can buy, and how long they expect that version to be available and useful, that translates into a cost per year. Sure, the product may still be productive after a certain point, but there may be features in 200X+3 that a critical part of the userbase requires, and it's difficult to support more than one version for a large company. Therefore, whether or not the subscription model is spelled out, it's basically a subscription anyway-- just that all 3-4 years of Office 2000 were paid for up front.
2) Sure, the web goes down. Nobody is willing to state that the wires will never break or that someone won't back hoe through a fibre line. Personally, when my intranet goes down, I'm dead in the water. I can't get e-mail from critical people, can't send e-mail to critical people (same for IMing), can't use the centralized databases that make my life, can't use networked drives for my data that must be backed up, etc. Big companies already depend on their intranet being up 99% of the time, and they lose money / productivity when they aren't. Adding one more tool to the pile won't have that big of an impact.
3) Raise your hand if you've ever depended on your users to apply a patch! In a web subscription model, even if a web service cluster is deployed to each major corporate site, it's not only a smaller number of computers to receive the patch, but those machines should be controlled by the site admins instead of lusers who get so many requests each day that learning how to apply a patch and verify that it was applied correctly between taking their laptops to meetings never seems to happen.
4) Value added ISPs. TV is filled with ISPs who are selling their transparent proxies that will translate all graphics into heavily compressed JPGs because it's a value added service, consider a case down the line where a vendor can have Corporate Web Office Suite slimmed down to the same interface, but with Home Version features only. That gets the kids at home something they can use that's like what Dad uses at work at a minimal cost to the ISP (just storage of the local machine host[s], keep all the bandwidth in house where it's cheap). The Web Office Suite Lite company gets to indoctrinate all the home users as a nice benefit.