Slashdot Mirror
Landscape Is Changing For Microsoft and Google
ReadWriteWeb writes "John Milan, Senior Software Architect and founder of TeamDirection, writes about the convergence of Web and Desktop. He argues that Microsoft and Google are focusing so much on each other, that both will either fail to notice the landscape is changing underfoot — or will be unable to adapt quickly enough. The article concludes that the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps. Both Microsoft and Google are racing toward a happy medium. However, they aren't the only players in town, not by a long shot. Both Mozilla and Adobe are well positioned to take advantage of desktop and web convergence."
As computer power increases, everything will be inside your browser.
Now we are starting to have Office Apps in the browser.
In the near future all your OS will be in your browser/server.
Your good old Desktop OS will be just to start your browser.
Apps neither run on desktop nor web - where then are they doing to run? On the USB drive?
> Instead, what will matter is that your data being everywhere and in sync.
I thought we have been trying to do that for years. Both Google and M$ have been trying. Clearly, yet another article that says close to nothing.
Next!
http://kelvin.quee.org
Just as Netscape before them, Google is only one provider of online services.
Just like Internet, Microsoft provides the infrastructure upon which online services may run.
Mozilla and Adobe are in an enviable position of providing tools for people to build useful applications upon.
Google, OTOH, needs to rely on constant innovation and development of markets in order to keep their revenue stream growing.
Who are Microsoft's competitors? Apple and Linux.
Who are Google's? You and me.
Google's not in any favorable position except in the most naive of interpretations.
Anyhow.. Google has already dropped the ball as far as online applications, with the acquistion of Writely and Google spreadsheets, calendar, and email already so previlant. Microsoft needs to get on their game to keep up in the online application market.
Don't you hate glorious self-promotion? Visit my Blog
I'm Scott McNealy, and I approve this message... D'oh!
This is the usual rant from pundits. Unfortunately, it does not help at all. This pundit, if he's one, doesn't tell us how exactly the "landscape is changing underfoot." These are events that are seemingly happening now, so the pundit should be able to say what is being ignored.
Advice to slashdotters: Ignore these kinds of posts. Who has forgotten Gartner's predictions on Linux?
I'll continue to use purely desktop/workstation applications as long as I possibly can.
I have not been impressed by any of the Web-based applications, especially those that make heavy use of AJAX. I've found them to be nothing blow slow, bloated pieces of fecal matter. Instead of helping me get my work done efficiently, they become a productivity barrier. To me, that's unacceptable.
Take email. While I know a lot of people like Google's GMail interface, I think it's horrid. It breaks stuff like opening messages in a new tab. I've noticed that other Web 2.0-style email interfaces do this, as well. And in the end, they don't offer any significant features. I find I can read, send and respond to email many times quicker when using mutt.
Then there's the whole security aspect to consider. I don't want my private data stored on some remote server somewhere, managed by somebody who I have never met. The only way I know my data is relatively safe is when it's on my desktop here running OpenBSD.
Maybe Web-based applications will get better. But I think they'll still have too many inherent flaws for me to want to use them.
1. Bandwidth; until ultra high speed internet connections are available everywhere, it will hinder innovation. Corporations can afford these lines DS3/OC3+++ but the average home user still has a crappy dsl connection or dial-up god forbid. Not exactly enough to run soley on web based content. Could you imagine Windows going even slower if it was Web Based?
2. Reliability; Using all web apps or a web based OS would be ridiculous. What happens when your DS3 circuit goes down at your company? Yeah sure we already rely on the internet for job related things and internet downtime does kill productivity, but it doesn't render your computer useless, you can still write code, do accounting stuff or whatever it is that you do.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
Microsoft is a very reactive company; when the landscape changes, they will eventually adapt, though it may take years. Google, however, is setting the pace in many ways, and has a boggling number of development efforts in the works that are still ahead of most other companies. So I disagree these two companies are somehow in the same predicament.
Anyway, from the article: "The days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps. Both Microsoft and Google are racing toward a happy medium. However, they aren't the only players in town, not by a long shot. Both Mozilla and Adobe are well positioned to take advantage of desktop and web convergence. Companies offering solutions that connect desktop and web apps together will get their chance too. Calendaring and project management are two obvious choices, but every productivity app deserves to be re-examined."
The author also says "in the spirit of open source I'm happy to dispense my advice freely...." Continuing that spirit, I'm happy to modify your advice so it actually works. Adobe will never go up against Microsoft, Google or others in developing their own "web convergence" applications (word processors, calendars, whatever). Adobe is in the business of enabling communication. If that means in print, they've got it (InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, etc.). If it means in portable documents, they've got it (PDF, now FlashPaper too). If it means web development, they've got it (Flash, Dreamweaver, GoLive, Flex, Cold Fusion, etc.). Adobe makes tools for designers and builders; they don't make the end product. The author of the article has missed this point.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Large static structures (companies) are less and less significant. People join many more networks, when it's simple & cheap to do so.
This affects the way we work. Traditional desktop software becomes less and less important. For example the bulk of work I used to do using a word processor now gets hammered out in wikis. An incredible, and increasing, amount of work happens just by email.
The future of online collaboration and work probably lies in today's games, anyhow.
My blog
The article concludes that the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered
Not trying to troll or flame, but this easily wins the Most Stupid and Short-Sighted Statement of the Year Award. And the word "clearly" makes it even more irritating.
I could name about 1,000 of kinds of software that can not and never will be web-based.
But they're not goggle developments. Look at all their recent releases, pretty much all acquisitions. Google aren't on the cutting edge, they're simply buying it and that's going to be a big problem; they aren't keeping up at all with their own developments and the more they buy the more trouble there will be integrating.
ASP is old hat. Time-sharing remotely has been going on since the sixties.
They've been saying this for years and all we have to show for it are some nifty AJA[X]pplications that are dependent on network latency and bandwidth for responsiveness (google maps for example, fails to load all the squares at least once each time I use it).
As long as broadband is sold as content and not a service, we won't get very far.
Desktop-based applications are dying. Internet-based applications will gain more prominence. Convergence of everything, everywhere, all the time will be the new modality. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Anyone have any new predictions - ones that haven't been bandied about already for 10 years?
What I mean is, it's highly fashionable to talk about web apps, web2, ajax, younameit buzzcrap, and the death of everything else. Accessing certain types of applications and certain types of data from everywhere is very nice, very useful, nobody doubts that. But it's insane to say only web-based apps have a future, and only network storages and remote data storages are the answer. For the average crowds, maybe, and in numbers this is what matters most probably, but hey, it's still those people who work with local data, local files, programming, working on heavy algorithms which no think client could handle, worling with sensitive research data that no remote storage provider can be trusted to, capturing and editing videos and other larger data sources, and I could just go on with a so humongous list that'd fill this week's reading quota.
:P
What I say is, every app and every platform has it's place. Those who come speculatively preaching about the end of one and the raise of another... well, we all have to spend our spare time somehow
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
In order to keep the Free Market free, I have actually reduced the amount I use Google. In order to keep the market a little more competitive, I use FireFox. I believe that monopolies are created by market desire; which, the consumers naturally desire to create. Thus, if you want to keep the market free, you must continuously seek underdog alternatives.
A lot of IT has been processed or held centrally on large servers since time began, the invention of the desktop PC didn't kill this off and both systems have lived happily side by side.
In the meantime there have been constant predictions that computing will move en-masse and irrevocably to one system or another with only slight nods to reality ( yes, we will keep the desktop PC but these will only be thin clients for our massive array of backend processing power on which everything will be run ).
This article seems to be saying that in the future we will use a mixture of both, like we do already. Yes, obviously it would be nice to be able to synchronize data between my different devices or groups of people and yes its quite likely that some of the companies mentioned in the article might be working towards this for the average user. That much is obvious, I fail to see what else there is in the article which is interesting ?
is pretty obvious.
I think Microsoft will have the easiest time adapting at this point. They can clearly throw almost any amount of dollars at whatever new trend comes along. Look at what they're doing with the on-line music store. They seem to be waiting to see where the other people are going and then creating their version of it.
So given that they've got a pretty solid grip on the desktop end, it's not too hard to imagine them taking their 'live' stuff further until it all blends together. Google will have a longer way to go to get a web-desktop blend.
Man, why is everyone so polar with people? The desktop OS will not be becoming just a browser. It's that simple. Too many people (like most corporations, for example) do not want their applications hosted on some far away server, and people who have the highest security needs will NEVER allow their apps to be hosted on any machine accessible via a basic internet connection (and no, SSL is not sufficient for, say, equities lending companies). These people want LOCAL software, hosted on internal machines.
Some people LOVE the idea of having truly mobile apps, and for those specific people a new market has emerged: Web-based apps. And that market is growing. BUT, that is all it is: A new market. And just like any other new market, it won't be overtaking ALL other computer software markets, or at the least, not for a long, long, long time. Why? Because not everyone wants that market, so companies will continue developing for all the markets they can to maximize profit, and that includes desktop apps.
Student Manager - Take control of your education!
"Than, after a few years, someone will come up with the revolutionary idea of a "personal computer", and we'll go round the loop again."
For those who didn't get the subtext. What he's trying to saying is that everything stays the same every time we have a "go round". The personal computer never changes. The network never changes. The server never changes. So why even get out of bed?
Microsoft has complete control over the Operating System world.
Google doesn't have complete control over the Internet.
Who has a brighter future?
Corporations will not want their data filtered out onto the internet, but developments in this area may lead back to a dummy terminal model. Corporations could run an application server that can serve the programs through a browser like interface. No need for loading any apps on the dummy terminals, no need for letting users load anything except that which the application server is serving up. With client side scripting taking half the weight and server side processing taking the other, the split makes it less taxing on the server.
The hacks and workarounds required to get an AJAX based application to behave like a native app are getting more and more bloated and expensive to deploy - all to emulate capabilities that brain-dead simple to implement in a desktop environment.
The browser was never meant to do the things it is doing. It had one purpose - follow hyperlinks. Request, response. Now we try to fake asynchronous behavior by putting lots of little tiny browser request/response interactions in the background, or now even worse, long-lived HTTP connections.
If we're really going to be pushing applications off the desktop and onto the web, what is needed is a thin client RMI browser - one that can make simple method calls over a network, truly asynchronously. Otherwise we'll constantly be fighting the performance issues and development costs associated with this current state of affairs.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Sneaking in under the radar has been the iTunes Store from Apple. It is a desktop app; no, it is a web-based app. Actually, it is both, and a very successful model for the future.
This line no sig
Platform independence is a myth. IE is not FireFox is not Safari is not iCab is not Lynx. Each has quirks and each web app will need to be programmed to handle each one of those quirks. Eventually it'll be a different web app for each browser which starts to look a lot like what we've got now with different apps for different hardware architectures.
We've tried this platform-independence idea before. It was called JAVA and despite all the promises we're still running a vast majority of architecture-dependent software.
"2.0" apps are dependent on JavaScript. JavaScript compromises the browser. We will eventually find it in every "best computing practice" paper to disable JavaScript within the browser. We're already seeing this, the use of JavaScript as a means to attack and spread is growing and will continue to grow as "2.0" becomes more popular. There will be a backlash and as JavaScript is removed from the browsing platform by more and more users the usefulness of these "2.0" apps will disappear.
Data. Who owns it? If it's on your USB drive or your CD or your HD then you own it. But what about those spreadsheets you developed with that "2.0" spreadsheet application?
Convenience comes at a price. With all your data stored in a "2.0" application you can access it from anywhere you find an internet connection. You can take your mainframe on the road. Sweet. But what happens when the construction company working on the building next to the data center of the service provider for your "2.0" app accidentally cuts the lines? Well now your company.. and a few thousand others go in the dark. And you become powerless to resolve the situation.
Security. All aspects. Vulnerabilities in the web app. Vulnerabilities in the client platform. Information management. Privacy. It's a nightmare.
Which is why, like JAVA before, "2.0" bubble will burst.
Not to mention Citrix, whose whole function is to bring desktop-like functionality to remote-delivered applications. It looks like (to a very casual user) a locally-running application, and sees your locally connected printers and hard drive, but is actually residing on a remote system somewhere.
It has a lot of problems (not least of which is the way that Microsoft requires you to buy software licenses), but it's quite popular in business.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
1) Create 'company' with a handful of people, and a 'product' deriving from microsoft office
2) Write in blogs as a "Software Architect"
3) ???
4) Profit!
"The browser is uniquely positioned among all applications as the desktop gateway to every existing web application. It's so obvious it seems trivial."
A tautology: the thing you use to browse the web is what you use to use the web! Knock me over with a feather.
"But first the web browser needs a feature. And in the spirit of open source I'm happy to dispense my advice freely: data recognition. Right now the browser excels at data caching, which is how your email pops up on different web pages in any edit box named 'EMail'. It's time for the next step. The browser should start recognizing the concept of email and be able to offer suggestions for fields of similar ilk. It wouldn't even be that hard... And what if Mozilla started defining some common field groups, like 'User Information,' as rich data types?"
Errr, well, Safari already does the last bit. It's kind of cute but I turn it off so that when other folks use my laptop, it doesn't cache their info or fill in fields with mine. But he wants caching of email subject and body fields? Why, in God's name?? I can't imagine wanting that in a dedicated email application! But when you wrap it up in buzzwords it sounds advanced and futuristic.
"With its popular browser, penchant for innovation and willingness to extend what the user experience can be, Mozilla has a chance to solidify itself among the giants and lay the groundwork for a real semantic web."
Semantic ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Everyone is already doing this. Notice Google's context-relevant advertisements? And their substring search service? Have you used wikipedia? Those are real. Have you ever made an html link? Congradulations! You helped build out the semantic WWW.
"The days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps."
So, essentially, what? All pure desktop apps, even ones that chunk through massive amounts of data and need large amounts of low-latency processing power and a highly complex UI will transition to using javascript and XML? Why? So that they can be slower and less functional? Is it hard to dress everything under the sun in the latest trends? Does putting every somewhat-related thing in the context of the latest fluffword inform? No.
>I believe that monopolies are created by market desire;
Yes, Microsoft didnt become a monopoly based on their well detailed history, its the users which desired it.
So I guess users have no one to blame but themselves.
Market desire is one of those terms, like "paradigm" and "business model", "a proper cost benefit analysis", "you need to understand and believe" and "do the numbers" when used much, indicate cluelessness on the part of the writer.
Look at engineers during a meeting when marketing experts give their speeches. As soon as you hit then with this talk, there eyes glaze over.
> which, the consumers naturally desire to create
Oh, here is another one of those!!
"but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps."
Check out the above crap.
This sentence has exactly the same grammar, wording and certainty of the other likewise sentences that were repeated over and over again by some "experts" (more like extra-zealous or excited tech enthusiasts) about many other subjects that became fads.
Need proof this above is a crap of bull ? think security and what problems the increasing web-desktop transiency has brought in terms of it - trojans, viruses, identity thefts, countless already.
From this point on every increase in this transiency will bring more serious security issues. taking measures against these is not foolproof, because in the world of bits, anything that can be done can be reversed - if there is a countermeasure there is the evasion of it already.
Hence "invisible hand" of the web will do the work i think - some sources (like google, with their office stuff over the web and likewise) will tend to increase the transiency, some will not. and some users will prefer to get transient, some will not. it all depends on preferences and the delicacy of the individual information/business information you hold or process in your intranet/desktop.
Read radical news here
One place I do think that the web and the desktop are coming together is gaming. Web based games such as http://www.phantasyrpg.com/register.php?step=1&ref =122782 mean that you have a client, but most of the work is done server side. This also eliminates the hassle of installing software for your platform. We will continue to develop different clients. Even if the client is not a web browser, multiple games will use the same client.
- But
...will it run Linux
- Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
- All your desktops are belong to us
- In Soviet Russia, the web owns you.
ThereJava web start, or a similar technology, is the way to go. Of course JWS failed the
first time around due to Java's ugly UI. Throw in the eclipse rich client and you've
got the best of all worlds. A remote client you can force updates to, the speed and
flexiblity of a thick client and it looks good with native UI components. If I have a choice
I'll use that next time.
Still, I've played with mozilla/XUL and written an in-house AJAX application. They still
leave a lot to be desired. XUL/javascript is a pain as mozilla is in constant flux. What
worked today does not work tomorrow. AJAX *can* be quite slow, just like any web page. It
all depends on the size of your pipe.
Thick client will be around for a while, just due to inertia if nothing else.
I quote, "Microsoft and Google are focusing so much on each other, that both will either fail to notice the landscape is changing underfoot -- or will be unable to adapt quickly enough."
Pardon my luserness, but does there _exist_ a landscape for 90% of computer users outside of Google and Microsoft? Is he saying that competing companies will develop a local/web converged.... operating system? Office tools package? Search engine? Exactly what is the functionality (and preferably the development names) of the applications that will replace Windows, Office and Google?
"Mozilla and Adobe are well positioned (..)" - In my world, which happens to be the uninformed one, Mozilla is simply a company making a web browser that people use if they dislike Internet Explorer for either 1) ideological reasons, 2) that IE doesn't work (as in my case) or 3) occasionally aesthetic reasons. Unless they intend to embed a Mozilla Office in their browser, I can't see how it can replace anything else branded Microsoft.
There is slightly more case for Adobe - I can somewhat see them making a form of active desktop with in-built functions to download flash content, that by chance happens to work poorly together with Windows and be ultimately ignored. Any other suggestions for the feature sets of these advanced convergent technologies?
Why does this whole net-services idea persist? It totally sucks.
Why should my word processor need the internet just to write a doc or open a spreadsheet? I'm sure it works out for Microsoft's marketing division just fine, but there are absolutely no benefits and a lot of disadvantages compared to running your own app locally.
What about if I want to write a document somewhere where the internet isn't availaable? e.g. on an aircraft or in a country with less internet copnnectivity?
What if I value my privacy and don't want my docs stored on line on someone elses server, or even going over the internet?
What if I just want to buy or downlaod for free the software and don't want to pay for a subscription-based services model?
Interesting article but I think the author misses a couple of important points. Microsoft's entire strategy is to find a way offer a best of both worlds approach where their platforms offers the "richness" (hate that word but not sure of a better one...) of great client (e.g. Windows) apps and the ease of development/updating and deployment of Web apps. Easier said than done. The irony is that...Microsoft actually might have the right strategy. Microsoft has been saying for years that it would be bad for users and dumb to move too far toward a Web-based application-only world b/c Web apps don't (and will never?) offer the high quality user experience that good client apps offer and b/c turning the hundreds of millions of PC's into, essentially, dumb terminals is a huge waste of processing power. MSFT's problem is that writing/updating and deploying old style Windows apps is such a pain in the ass that users and businesses have been willing to live with the lower quality experience they get from Web apps they're such much easier to deal with. If they (or Adobe?) can ever get it right then Microsoft will be as successful in the future as they have in the past. Things that Microsoft is working on like WPF/e, while still mostly vaporware, have the potential to give developers the best of both worlds - a cross platform ,"managed" runtime with high quality vector graphics/video/audio that,when running in Windows takes advantage of Windows API's/hardware acceleration etc and, when running on other platforms offers an almost as good experience.
Part of the problem is Google is trying to out MS MS in following the buy out lots of startups for cool technology. That can work, but MS has LOTS of money and can likely buy out more companies than Google can. Also, MS has more infrastructure and experiance in rebranding and integrating purchased products.
While I don't deny that the buy out a startup is a valid business strategy, I wonder if trying to do the same thing as Microsoft makes sense for a company as different as Google (I.E. they don't sell software AFAIK).
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
"The article concludes that the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered"
That in itself is enough for me. It was the same story 10 years ago. Desktop applications are still living well and anyone involved in UI development knows they're coming back strong. The Web 2.0 hype won't live that long.
I actually think Microsoft may be ahead of the curve on this one, though it may be accidental and most people at Microsoft may not even know it. In my opinion, for all the coolness of Web 2.0, web applications are still limited. They can't do all the things desktop apps can, and if you network connection goes down, you're screwed. Where desktop apps fail is that they tie to you a specific desktop and they need to be installed. You can't just pull up Microsoft Office at your friends house unless he has it installed, and you can't necessarily get access to your documents and settings anyway.
So where I think we have the best example of what the future might hold is in a little Microsoft application called "Exchange"-- or more to the point, Exchange OWA. What you have there is a very successful desktop application-- Outlook-- and a web application that mirror each other very closely. They have very similar interfaces and similar features, and most importantly, your data is automatically kept in sync between the two.
Now, of course that last part is obvious in this implementation. You have an e-mail client and a webmail client, so of course the data is going to stay in sync. However, I think this will become key in the success of web applications in the future because no one wants to have to worry about yet another place where they have to keep their data in sync.
So according to this viewpoint, what Google needs to do is make a simple desktop application that looks like their web apps and works like their web apps. Then, they need to make it so when I make a change on the desktop version, it automatically syncs with the desktop version, and vice versa. The whole idea here is, when I'm at home I have access to the best features the desktop can offer (including not needing an internet connection), and when I'm away I can have an application that looks and works similarly to what I have at home.
I don't think people are ready for pure web applications yet.
Why the sprint to "merging" the web and the desktop into something that tries to be both and does neither very well? It's like all those new cell phones that all you to make calls/take pictures/listen to music/write documents/diagnose your foot pain/force your enemies to cower before you/etc, yet they do none of those tasks very well. Why not just admit there are something tasks that must be done locally, somethings that must be done remotely, and only a handful that can be done in either domain? Why the need to muddle the line between the two domains to provide a solution to all problems yet solve none of them?
Space for rent, inquire within
The WYSE "slim client" has already quietly replaced the PC as a way to access the web. How long will it be until a subscription with an ISP includes a package containing roll-up wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, and maybe a roll-up display?
Desktop power is still scaling faster than network speed, but I think the approaces Microsoft, Adobe, and Mozilla are all pursuing are of "content runtime" approach - where quite a bit of the work really does happen on the desktop. That's (more or less) the specific "convergence" the author is referring to...
--
graphicallyspeaking
graphically speaking
"You're correct, but that's a different issue -- why do folks pay Microsoft money for MSOffice when there are free products that do the job every bit as well? Beats me. Yes, there are a small number of Microsoft office product users that genuinely need the real thing because they need VBA macros or because of their support arrangements and such."
You should be beaten. MSOffice and other MS apps get their dominance not just from the apps themselves, but all the third-party software that works with it, as well as the fact that MSapps work together.
"But I think the subject here is why people would choose a slow, limited, web oriented tool over a faster, more capable MSOffice tool."
You left out the word "intranet".
I think this really boils down to an application distribution question, not a "client/server" vs. "Web app" vs. "desktop app" discussion. Most apps are really all 3 these days (even those "web apps" are running local "code" with Javascript in a browser). There are some nice qualities to "content" and I think the toolset for development and distribution, as well as the context for execution of the next gen of apps is what the discussion is about in the article...
---
graphically speaking
graphically speaking
Adobe will never go up against Microsoft, Google or others in developing their own "web convergence" applications (word processors, calendars, whatever). Adobe is in the business of enabling communication.
.net currently code-named Apollo. They intend to distribute a runtime like the .net runtime, that will provide a platform for running apps that are a mixture of HTML, javascript, flash and actionscript, with API's to access the local system's capabilities but still platform independent. They're even integrating a KHTML-based browser engine so you can integrate web content directly into your apollo app (and apply all of flash's graphical effects to it).
They won't make word processors and calendars because there's little profit to be had in that unless you can couple it with a context-sensitive ad network (like google's), which adobe doesn't have. But they are most definitely going head to head with microsoft.
Adobe is readying a flash-based platform for desktop app development that will compete with
I also expect them to bundle this with the pdf reader, so that everyone will have it installed.
Now I read the article. OK. Mea culpa. It's all in there.
Opera widgets, Mozilla XUL, Yahoo Widgets, Google Gadgets, Apple Dashboard
Some even let you use SVG in them, so cool
Google "dropped the ball" with respect to webapps? I'm pretty sure they didn't.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
It's interesting that they mention Mozilla since a lot of Mozilla's staff is employed at Google.
The article concludes that the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps.
:)
I've been hearing about the death of the desktop for at least 20 years. It only makes sense that applications for it are finally dieing.
Client/Server applications have been around a lot longer than the WWW. However, the mainframe/smart-terminal combinations have never been popular with the end-user. The WWW, and the Internet in general, is very good at distributing dynamic content. That is what it is used for. The only Web Applications that have seen any real success are email clients. However, I question even that success. Public, free, email servers are very popular. However, most force you to use their web-based email client.
Unless hardware suddenly becomes expensive again, software will stay on the local desktop.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
"But they [Adobe] are most definitely going head to head with microsoft."
I agree they're going head to head with MS on web development tools. But the article was about the actual web apps, not the development tools. Adobe is not going to get into that market.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
... but with a different language.
I want a similar technology developed with a language from the Lisp family.
That would really be programmer nirvana.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
How handy that a user named "ReadWriteWeb" submitted an article that is hosted by... you guessed it... readwriteweb.com. Come on Taco, how much did they pay you for this advertisement?
Why do these morons always seem to assume that I will be happy to give control of my data and programs to an external entity? There will be NO convergence of web and desktop applications. Period. Reasons:
I want total control over my data. It is private. My business data is also not to be available to others except in ways that I determine.
I want total control over my programs. I do not want to be charged for each time I use a program. I do not want my programs changing behaviour without my explicit consent. A business can not be run under those kinds of parameters either.
Again, there will be NO convergence. A few applications may benefit from it. Webmail comes to mind. Regardless, there will always be local programs and local data.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
When John Milan says "the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps" - he is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons given.
The writing is on the wall people -- we're already seeing a demand for hybrid applications.
Example from my work area -- online education:
Teachers publish their course materials online, create online tests, grade assignments, lead discussion forums online. So far, so good. Now they want ways work on their materials offline, superior editing tools, vastly improved performance, the ability to save materials off the server, and significantly improved control of the student's test taking environment.
A web-only application cannot provide (all) of this. Conversely, developing a pure client-server application throws away the marvelous (and growing) cross-platform infrastructure (HTML, Javascript, Flash) provided by IE and Firefox, the ability to access the course from any computer with a browser, and an internet connection and default data synchronization with a highly accessible server (i.e. you don't have to "sync" gmail - it does it for you).
One potential answer as well as upcoming buzzphrase is the "offline client", and companies such as IBM and Adobe are taking this seriously.
There of course are questions about who's going to implement the most successful online/offline application suites and development environments. But I it's good bet that -- within the next 15 years -- anyone who builds an application without both significant functionality on the browser side *and* a featureful offline client will be in the same boat of someone trying to build an GUI-less application today.
As Miller says, it would be foolish for Microsoft and Google not to try to capitalize on this trend. Look for Microsoft Studio 2010 to tout its "offline client wizard" capabilities.
From the User's experience, how is this convergence concept different from my KDE desktop that provides apps that can use a local or remote URL to retrieve and save files. Really, the location of any glob of data can be represented as a URL.
Or is this debate actually about the hardware -- or more specifically, selling bunches of new hardware? The existing hardware and software seems more than adequate to do the jobs we require. I'm certain that fact doesn't sit well with the major players in the field.
The day I can copy/paste all the internet to my desktop will be the day I am convinced.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it