Slashdot Mirror
Can Web Apps Ever Truly Replace Desktop Apps?
tooger writes "Matt Hartley from MadPenguin.org opines that web apps can never replace desktop applications, for a variety of reasons. He writes, 'Some of you may point out that the data stored on your hard drive is not of any real consequence, but I would disagree. It is more than probable that a skilled, disgruntled employee of the company you trust with your data could ... sell off your personal information.' Given the real danger of privacy concerns, identity theft, and uptime, will web-based applications ever truly replace locally hosted software?"
A more appropriate question might be, "What is the extent to which Web apps will be effective, and accepted?".
Many desktop applications are of that ilk solely from the era of their birth. There isn't always a compelling reason an application needs to run on a desktop, and Web offers another and slightly different alternative. And as for some of Web apps shortcomings pointed out by the author, they're mostly nits, things that will be solved soon, or already solved.
I for one find Google applications (spreadsheet, word processor) perfectly good replacements for my more modest needs day to day. They come close, at this very immature stage in their life cycles, to being able to completely replace my need for desktop instantiations. I would guess the average lay-person would fall more neatly into this demographic -- the average computer user could save lots of dollars by getting comfortable with the scaled back versions of stuff they paid big money for but never tapped the deep and myriad powers from.
There probably always will be a place and reason for desktop applications: data security, data privacy, contracts, speed, availability, etc., but Web offers another approach and an increasingly viable approach to replacing applications we all once thought of as "desktop".
As a developer, it's changed my way of thinking when it comes to creating and designing new products. It isn't a hard transition, and it offers some interesting new ways to make magic for my clients (mashups, etc.).
The article describes "lack of sync" options with Google apps. Yawn. I've written my own for now, I agree it's a bit of a nuisance. Does anybody think for a moment these gaps aren't going to be filled soon?
If most people will trust Microsoft with their personal data, why shouldn't they trust some random company out there on the web someplace? Microsoft has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy (spyware, insecurity.)
If over 50% of the world's PCs are compromised, then most people's data is already vulnerable, on their own PC.
I call FUD.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No.
Given the prevalence of behavior-logging spyware on most end-consumer computers, I'm not sure if the average person's data would be more secure on their own PC, or even their work PC. Of course it's nice to feel that you're responsible for your own data, and it's sitting there safe on your hard drive, but Microsoft is Microsoft, rootkits are rootkits, and Chinese hackers are Chinese hackers.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
People keep forgetting that in a corporate setting, you'll want to run your own Web Services service. While GMail for companies may make a lot of sense for the little guys, the big guys are only going to do it if they can control it internally. That takes the privacy and security concerns down to almost zero.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
What if the same web-based-application architecture was applied to a corporation's intranet? This way you could host all your employees' applications in one location, as well as handle backup operations more easily.
I feel as though these "web" based applications have more than just Internet usage.
Blerg.
I'd hate to have to go wardriving just to be able to open a word processing document on my laptop.
I'm sorry, but really... WHO gives a shit what this guy thinks?
I agree, for a variety of reasons. For one, there's security, but for me the biggest problem with web-based apps is that they don't go everywhere my computer does. When I'm at my friend's beach house, there's no internet connection. What am I supposed to do if I need to finish up a paper or something like that? Web based apps are great because of their portability in other ways (I can access them from any computer) but personally, I will never use them exclusively. Anything saved on the web will always be copied to my local hard drive too.
I would much rather keep track of my own data. I really don't know what security or backup scheme is set up in remote hosts and feel I may be vulnerable to attack and not even know about it. If I make a mistake with my own data security or backup, I can slap myself on the forehead (or curse loudly for a half hour depending on seriousness) and know it's my own fault whereas when someone else accidentally looses information, or worse yet, lets needed information slip into the wrong hands, I know I would be absolutely livid.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
"could sell off your personal information."
Sorry to disappoint you, but people don't even want my personal information when I offer it to them (that chick at the bar) for free!
Personally I would identify data security as the major problem with web applications. Features, speed and availability will all improve as bandwidth becomes less of an issue - and privacy is something that could arguably be easier to control in what is essentially a thin client application. However, integrity and the (current) lack of guarantees regarding backups and recovery are the real stumbling block. If this can be overcome (and it's only going to happen when people are willing to pay for these services) then I don't see why web applications shouldn't become as popular as desktop environments.
I was promised flying cars...Why are there no flying cars?
no, just like TV never truly replace radio. They will just diverge and serve different functions in the long run.
Of course they can. All you need is the bandwidth which most people have (VPN anyone?). And you don't need to use a web-browser either, the app could be a hybrid where a client plugs into a server and works from there. So things that web-browsers have trouble with (like updating drop-down list boxes with new items) could be handled indistinguishably from a local application. Basically you could write a custom client that connects to an appropriate web-based server and through your own custom protocol have the local application interact with a remote information base. And if you wait five years probably most or all of the functionality that is missing from web applications versus local applications will become standards based so it will happen.
Shh.
That's because those articles are online, and the people who write online articles love being online.
You ask the guy without an Internet connection, or with a 56K whether he thinks web apps will replace desktop apps and he'd be all like "WTF?" Keep in mind that some huge fraction of Americans never intend to get an Internet connection. Don't just dismiss that many people as idiots, either.
And how would you like it if your C++ compiler or GIMP or Photoshop or 3D Studio Max was a web application? Has anybody thought it through? It's not even a matter of security, just plain utility.
not if I want to keep my ******* data private!!
Never say never, but at least for the forseeable future, web apps won't replace locally installed applications for many of the same reasons that even network mounted applications on high speed networks just don't measure up. There are all kinds of problems from network availability to just plain misconfiguration and everything inbetween. Even on gigabit networks, server availability can be a bottleneck and other unforseeable factors such as high network utilization due to worms, tuesday updates, etc.
Web apps have their place- support ticket systems of all scales and sizes, various other corporate oriented intranet apps where multiple employees need to enter data and would otherwise have to install an application on every machine, and just too many other places to list- but big apps like Word and Excel just can't, with current technology, match the level of power (I mean functionality/features) available on the desktop (not counting shared resources on the server reducing responsiveness) and the ability to handle large files easily.
Lots of people don't have cheap, always on, high speed connections. So I don't think they will be interested. Maybe the big players pushing web applications will be the best thing that's ever happened to encourage take up of open source software. Huge numbers of people round the world with poorer quality connections will be up for trying out open source versions of popular cornerstone tools if the big players all move to a web only model...
When the day comes that I can burn my secure data files to a DVD with a web app and not need to take my tinfoil hat off first...
then and only then might web apps replace desktop ones completely.
Do you like Japanese imports?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The calculus is pretty straightforward...which one of the following is more costly?
1) Inability to work without a reliable connection.
2) Dealing with the risk of theft, drive crash, maintenance of backups at the user level, etc.
It's also an old question. Just because we are using browsers instead of X terminals doesn't make much difference. The answer to which was better was and will remain, "it depends". Different strokes for different folks.
So now I don't know. Besides the security of having all your data on your own hard drive, I'm not sure I have a compelling technical reason to argue that virtually all applications couldn't eventually be ran through the web browser.
No, because without some locally hosted software, you can't get to the web site all your other stuff would be on anyways.
That being said, still no. My cablemodem is fast, but I doubt it's as fast as the SATA cable between my application and the file it's trying to load.
Currently, net performance is orders of magnitude slower than local cabling (for most of us, anyways. You guys on Internet2 can ignore me.) But as soon as those two are on par, web based applications will become a possibility. But until then, who would want load times that slow?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I wonder if his mom is Nina Hartley?
HooHoo!
I'm sorry, but really... WHO gives a shit what EveryNickIsTaken thinks?
How about judging TFA on its merits, not the fact that it was written by someone you don't know.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
offtopic, but your sig is fabulous!
o goff.wav
http://www.the-sopranos.com/sounds/tony/s3_tony_l
While users on Slashdot can cover all bases of opinions the bottom line will be profit and acquiesance. Web apps will slowly replace desktop apps so long as desktop apps fail to turn the same profit that web apps and subscription services can. To some extent we can figure in the level to which users acquiesce to the transfer but the fact simply is that there are larger entities than end users calling the shots on this one. It's like pushing a bill through Congress: if at first they don't succeed they'll launch a campaign to poll the public for the conflicting arguments, they'll pay enough lip service to make people think that the issues have been resolved, and then they'll resubmit next year. If the major business partners on Wall Street decide that they're making more money from companies which offer web based applications then, slowly but surely, venture capital will be steered away from desktop application vendors and to world wide web application providers. We, the end users, have no control over this.
There may be ways to stop the steamroller from moving forward but they would require drastic changes in the way that our government, media, and Wall Street are integrated. If world events over the last ten years are any road sign, coupled with the absolute neutralization of any real authority of the American plebium to steer their own direction, then there's no chance of that happening. We the consumers simply do not control enough capital or enough financial resources to make our opinion even matter.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Well, there have been very similar articles. And the discussion won't be different, and the discussion is the important part of slashdot right?
Discussion might go something like: web apps are good for intranet applications like a calendar, web apps are sometimes less secure, desktop apps can be used offline (no wait! there's a new feature of Firefox somewhere, RTFA, web apps are useful for this, desktop apps are good for that, and there's a balance. Blah blah blah.
Why Desktop Email Still Trumps Webmail
People Don't Hate to Make Desktop Apps, Do They?
Google Apps Premier Edition Launches
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
There are two different issues being conflated here:
I would say that the answer to the first question is very probably "yes". After all, people used mainframe applications successfully for many years ; some still do. We have routinely run workstation networks with "dataless" clients (think a Unix/Linux box with only the OS, X, and swap on the local disk) precisely because we could control security and reliability more effectively. (Possibly, some users will bitch, because they want to control "their" data. If the data, as it usually does, belongs to the firm, I will punch their sympathy ticket, but otherwise -- tough.)
On the other hand, I would be wary of entrusting all my data storage and/or processing to an external provider. That raises all the same sorts of questions that any outsourcing deal does.
If web-apps go mainstream, expect the law to eventually catch up once the privacy-abuse horror stories get out.
The law will protect you from unauthorized snooping in "your" files. It will also require encryption, but allow or require a law-enforcement back-door.
Companies will probably want to administer their own web-apps, but Joe Consumer doesn't.
What will drive web-apps?
1) small devices best suited as "network terminals."
2) ease-of-first-use/no-installation-required
3) Apps and data available from any computer in the house, or planet, without having to manage a server.
4) little administration, no worrying about "my disk crashed"
What will get in the way?
1) lack of a perpetual-use license
2) fear/lack of control - "what if the network goes down" or "what if my vendor stops providing service/goes bankrupt"
3) privacy concerns
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
First of all, Mr. MadPenguin.Org, why the fuck do you put big bold links to unrelated stories RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of your little rant? Those look like section headings. I was confused the whole time I was reading the article. Since they weren't underlined--like the link that appears in the article is--I didn't know they were links until I moused over them. I couldn't figure out how OLPC and a rant against Linux worked into this web app article. Sure, your nav links aren't underlined either, but they're all grouped in standard places--they don't just unexpectedly pop up in the middle of the article.
Apple Delays Leopard to October.
Aaaaaanyway, why do we still keep seeing this binary (no pun intended) bullshit? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't we all just get along? Will web apps ever replace desktop apps? Probably not. But--will desktop apps ever replace all web apps? Gotta give a big 'no' on that one too. So why have a story at all? What's next--"Will cars replace walking?" Web apps do some things well, local apps do other things well--and the definition of 'well' depends on the user. Email, for me, is very simple--a ten-year-old email client does pretty much everything I need, as does nearly every webmail service. And since I have two jobs, I never launch the binary email client I have on my desktop. Even when I'm home, I'm reading webmail with my laptop on the couch. For me, a web-based app has 100% replaced a local app. Since email doesn't work without *some* kind of connection--yeah, I can compose offline, BFD; it's not going anywhere without a live wire--the fact that webmail only works with a working Net connection is moot. So the main thing that people might call a disadvantage, isn't. (For me at least. I'm sure some jet-set business type is going to reply and tell me how much email he composes on a plane. Fine. It's a need of yours, but not of mine.) If I were ever organized enough to maintain a calendar, I'd probably do that online too.
He starts off by complaining that online data storage is risky. Someone should tell him about encryption. If box.net wants to give away the gig of encrypted data I've got stored there, fine. Just means more backups, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who takes the time to decrypt it will be mighty bored looking at what I've got stored there anyway.
His other big example seems to be that Google's calendar can't sync with a device. Give it time, man. A) it isn't rocket science, and I'm sure the big brains at Google can figure out a way to make that happen, B) as soon as they care to devote some time to the issue. (Look for Apple's iPhone to make this kind of thing much more popular, just like the iMac made USB peripherals popular almost a decade ago.) As he points out, there are third-party apps that make this possible--but his point seems to be that since it isn't a first-party solution, it sucks. OK. Whatever.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Reading this discussion reminds me of every discussion I've ever seen about the thin/dumb clients vs. PC debate. Thin/dumb clients will replace the PC, why do you need all that power? Give up control! Your data is safe somewhere else!
So how is that thin/dumb client industry working out? Sell any more machines outside of a government setting since 1997?
For the most part, people want to control their important data and no serious user/business is going entrust their data to companies which promise to "do no evil" or others that have been declared monopolies or others, etc.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Whenever I hear positive talk about web apps, it's mostly developers who say how easy they are to deploy. Or managers and admins tend to like the idea because they seem to make their lives in one or the other aspect easier. But whenever actual users talk about web apps, I have the feeling it is mostly negative. With web apps it seems a bit to be like with Java. I know a few developers who love to develop with Java and its tools, but actually hate to run and use Java apps themselves.
Many desktop application get strong support because people also run then privately at home. If the average user really hates web apps, he won't run them at home. Therefore he won't get a very good working knowledge of them, with the result that he will only use them only reluctantly at work. This surely won't help productivity. So it is to see whether the user or the admin faction is winning.
No reason at all that the web server hosting the application cannot be running local or remote and or
a hybrid of both local and remote....
Got Code?
I'd like to see them replace the desktop Web browser application with a webbased one!
Life needs more saving throws.
We're never going back to dumb terminals. That's not to say that there won't ever be uses where dumb terminals make sense -- there are and will be. But PCs will always have a niche, and I don't see their usefulness going away, ever.
Heavy processing where high latency can't be tolerated (such as 3d gaming) will always be run locally, while at some point down the road and where high latency can be tolerated, heavy processing could conceivably be moved to the server side or to distributed networked supercomputing clusters.
We're living in an age where web apps and locally run apps will henceforth always co-exist. The best of breed will integrate web services in such a way that the distinction between what is desktop and what is web app blurs and becomes meaningless or irrelevant. Take a look at Picasa's integration with Google's web galleries for an example of where the future is headed.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Company name: Hey wood yablome, Inc
CEO:Dick Hertz
Treasurer: Mike Hunt
Address: 123 Main St.
And then, write everything in code. For example, if I were to write a memo to Microsoft, Bill Gates would be Osama Bin Laden.
Regarding buying Windows, Windows would equal crack.
And so forth. This way, if my business documents were discovered, they would make no sense. And if they were misunderstood, I would be making a shit load of money and would have to leave the country as a result of those communications.
If the benefits of zero-install/zero-admin outweigh concerns of privacy/availability, it's a no-brainer...also way easier for developers (less variants). Of course, no-one's going to give up anything to get there...it's gotta be an all-other-things-being-equal sort of deal.
I'm a fan of web mail, particularly Gmail, and am beginning to use the calendar and applications more often. As a designer, the things that will likely remain on the desktop are power applications, and even in these instances I see a lot of "smart" back-up and collaboration/sharing between web resources. As processors themselves begin to share resources across networks, I can't imagine that applications will not do the same.
Which is more jarring to a business, when the server goes down, or the network? In my experience it's the network, everything stops, and people wander around in a creepy malaise.
Don't waste my time with dups...
0 4/10/011220
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/
Duh. Depends on who you are and what you do. For some folks, yes, for most folks, no.
Heard any good sigs lately?
The only way it would be likely for this to happen, would be in an enterprise situation, rather than internet and home use situations. In large companies that use application servers that hog quite a bit of resources when running apps and profiles, web based applications via the intranet could possibly use less resources and be replicated more easily than existing schemas. This can also be propagated to other web based technologies, whether it be linux OR windows based, making it much easier for companies to make decisions on equipment in the future, due to expenses. Web based applications bring about less need for higher storage in some cases, especially at the client desktop level. This will, of course, come about as a type of "linux vs. windows" ordeal, whereas each OS is fit for different customers, depending on preference. BUT, you may see companies expanding to web based options for those who it may apply to, for future customer interest.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Who really wants web based applications? Are consumers really demanding this, or is it simply nerds thinking that it would be 'cool'. I think that the web apps that need to exist already do. For instance, i'm CONSTANTLY using a 5250 at work. Thats how my as400 machine is used. There is literally nothing stored on the users machines except a client. Or howabout email, there is no processing or anything done on the client side...its all server.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
Because there are the matters of sensitive data, and privacy.
even google risks orders from federal government for handing over user data. They might have fought and won, but it doesnt mean that they will always win.
As such, people will still hold sensitive data within their locale.
Read radical news here
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Isn't this pretty much the same as asking "Can desktop apps every truly replace mainframe apps"?
There will always be room for them, and I doubt any one of the concepts will entirely supplant another.
I use web apps (not exclusively), but will they replace desktop apps? Not likely, at least not yet. One issue not mentioned yet is the UI limitations of working in a browser. I find the extant limitations frustrating at best. Do you really think that a web app could match the functionality and UI of your favorite text editor? Not presently and not in the near future.
We want web apps to be difficult and arduous to code in order to keep programmers employed. Once in awhile we introduce new convoluted technologies into the domain for no good reason other than to usher out the old and keep the coding rabbits hopping for the next carrot. It works brilliantly. More hopping rabbits means bigger IT department. Bigger IT department means bigger budget and responsibility which in turn means bigger salary and bonuses for managers. The coding rabbits don't mind either. Many of them seek praise and lots of petting. That's a good rabbit. Yes. Yes you are. You're a smart little rabbit aren't you!
Why is the web and it's RIA winning so much attention? Because there is so much to win. Formats are being cracked wide open via RIAs, no matter how copmlicated they are to develop. The web is the easiest way around the last 10 years of MS stranglehold. And people want to take it, even if they can't exactly put a finger on what's nagging them. Webapps are easy to maintain. And where they're not, there's an OSS desktop application waiting to be installed with a few mouseclicks. But they are getting less.
The truth is that webapps have allready replaced C64 and Amiga level desktop apps. And that is all the people need to work properly.
Funktionality wise RIAs are somewhere in the early 90s - but that's all it takes to be productive. Google Spreadsheet is a performance hog and a slowpoke. But on a 2GHz Dual Core it's faster and more powerfull than the first Lotus123. Which is all most people need to say goodbye to a desktop spreadsheet. Go check out Google Apps and see what I mean. It is that combined with KDE and Ubuntu that must scare the living wee-wee out of Steve Balmer and the MS lot.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Can they? Let's waste our time on discussing this.
http://news.com.com/Adobe+to+take+Photoshop+online /2100-7345_3-6163015.html
"Hoping to get a jump on Google and other competitors, Adobe Systems plans to release a hosted version of its popular Photoshop image-editing application within six months, the company's chief executive said Tuesday.
"
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Thanks, I think I'll stick to my hard drive.
The major possible exception to this is gaming; but even there consoles are paving the way. I wonder if developers have started to think about utilizing local resources for the intense computational stuff, while maintaining an otherwise thin presence on the client machine?
[Ego]out
But, then again, I'm a web developer. The only applications I use on a regular basis that are on my machine are a text editor, and IM client, and (ugh) Outlook. Everything else runs on a server.
So switching to that in my personal life was fairly easy. Since I'm not on my own computer most of the time, having my email and calendars and address book on a web service is extremely convenient.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
but only the boring ones.
Short answer:
o ooo.
No.
Long answer:
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You're SOL on a plane if you don't have an offline version of the software.
..don't panic
What you're describing happened back in the 1990's and was called "Client/Server" computing. But what went wrong was many things such as:
* The backend database vendors got greedy and overpriced their products and client licenses.
* The thick client software apps were always in a state of perpetual unfinished development.
* User Interfaces were inconsistent as hell, and often written to satisfy a programmer, not an end user.
* Many software companies who supplied key components for building c/s apps just simply tanked (e.g. Informix, Borland, etc)
* Too many app developers wrote their stuff very stupidly (e.g. requiring both ip socket connections to database engines plus having to have a mapped drive to a server share... often using hardcoded pathnames too; extremely stupid practice of having some databases/tables locally cached in a multiuser environment with no mechanism for reliable and timely updates from local cache back to the master tables and then back to all users' local caches; holding table or row locks across a data entry screen; etc, etc)
Web Apps can certainly supplement Desktop Apps for most functionality (or even greater functionality), but total replacement will not happen. I love the features that Google has added, and I'm slowly, but surely, becoming a frequent user of all their myriad of web applications. However, come hurricane season, I cannot guarantee I will be able to get to what I need. Living in the Sunshine State (also known as the Lightning Capital of the World, Hanging Chad, and the #1 target of hurricanes) I understand and accept that my Internet access is not governed by net neutrality, but rather Mother Nature. When cable and phone lines are down, web apps become inaccessible (wireless in a hurricane is an exercise in futility), forcing me back to my desktop apps. Unless we can start controlling weather and end the hurricane season, desktop apps are here to stay.
We just had a similar discussion with email, whether or not a client is more effective as a standalone app or as a web client. I guess the idea of going out and getting your own news article is like a student researching his own term paper.
And to answer the question yet again: yes, and no. What will we consider a web app five or ten years from now? Ten years ago, a website looked a good deal different than today's websites. Will the browser move more towards the cell phone? Or, will there be a viable client that replaces both voice and IP? Who knows...
the same goes for hardened, standalone systems. We go through cycles of Client/Server apps and standalone monoliths programmed for specific tasks. It comes and goes.
You know, this all depends on your definition of what a "Web App" is. Lets not forget that all client side executed code is run from within the client's RAM, just because you are using a browser doesn't mean that the code is magically executed "somewhere on the net."
Now....
Lets take Google's apps for example, These applications are
1: HTML/CSS to describe what a user sees
2: Javascript to allow client-end functionality (AJAX on client side)
3: Server back end (respond to AJAX)
Soo... why is this a Web App? Lets pretend I didn't get the HTML/CSS/Javascript from Google, lets pretend I got these files from my harddrive... am I now running a desktop app, or am I still running a web-app because I am using a browser?
Lets take things a bit further now. Instead of Google sending HTML/CSS/Javascript, they send you a compiled binary, or a java JAR file. Because I am receiving these files from the web, am I now running a web-app?
Or perhaps you define a web-app based on the server/client interaction.
So, if you base your definition of web-app upon "it runs in a browser," then the answer to the question posed "Can web apps ever truely replace desktop apps." The answer is "Yes, When browsers become feature rich enough"
If your definition is based on downloading content from the web the answer is "Yes, when security is in place to trust these downloaded binaries"
If your definition is based on the client/server interaction the answer is "Yes, when the correct web services are available"
There are problems:
a) Bandwidth - The USA is really slow on the bandwidth wagon, I'm still stuck on 6mb cable(after living in Germany, where you can get 20mb cable/100mb Fiber) This is slow.
b) Data size vs. Bandwidth - You keep shoving more and more data down my 6mb/sec throat. With 500gb hard drives on the cheap, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, HD content in general. Storage is increasing the fastest I think, and then the size of data. See a).
c) Performance of web applications suck. It's slow slow slow. You could cache the files locally for faster access, but then, whats the point? Just install an application.
d) Lack of features - While I use vim to type up just about everything, lot's of people out there use a lot of features in office(hence their dependency on it). Matching all of these up to their local software counterparts first won't work(data size issues).
e) Data storage - I like google, but now I'm starting to get worried about how much of my data they have through email. Now office files? And I'm not just going to point out google, but Microsoft, and every other large data mining company that wants to get their hands on my data to sell to marketers?
Solution?
We need faster bandwidth. We need smart developers that can make fast web apps(if that's even possible). What might be better is a remote desktop setup where you access your local things remotely. Like webex, rdesktop, mstsc...
Our small manufacturing company uses desktop applications extensively, and they are a major security problem.
Sales people have quit and brought valuable proprietary information to our competitors. Giving our competitors information we worked hard (and spent a fair amount of money) to obtain.
Webapps can be secure. Your bank trusts them.
With a webapp I can guarantee that everybody has a current version of the program, that everybody is working from the most recent price lists, people can access information anywhere in the world at anytime. And when they quit they are cut off instantly. I don't have to knock on their door asking for the company laptop.
why would you want it to?
as others have pointed out, big companies that care about privacy and security concerns will make the web apps run off their own internal servers. Web apps are poised to take over for desktop apps. Why install some software on a hundred or a thousand machines when you can install it on one and have everyone log on to it? For the home user, having your e-mail and school reports easily accessible from anywhere without having to lug around cds or flash drives makes the privacy concerns irrelevant. Most of the stuff I need to keep secure are already online in the form of my online banking account and credit card information saved on some servers somewhere. The documents and stuff on my hard drive aren't very important to anyone but me. If I wasn't in the 3d animation industry and didn't required processor and memory intensive software to do my work, I don't know why I'd need a computer that was any better than a dumb terminal to the web.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
It is more than probable that a skilled, disgruntled employee of the company you trust with your data could ... sell off your personal information.
this doesn't complete the argument. what about commercial business that uses mostly desktop today? for most of these businesses this argument doesn't hold up because the same could be said for desktop apps, and this is a big piece of the pie.
What if the said web applications were just the applications and all of your data were stored on your own computer or you were given the choice to store all of the data on your own computer.
What if the company never had any mechanism for its employees to be able to retrieve any of its users data, only the user could, such as for credit card information, encrypting it and only decrypting it for the user when the user is logged in.
I also think the work that the w3 has done in making the DOM persistent in the application which is being developed into Firefox 3 is really cool, which will make stuff like google apps fully usable offline.
I believe it's really truly short-sighted to say that web applications cannot replace desktop applications. I believe that they can and 'web applications' is really just a term that will be replaced as the line between web and desktop apps gets fuzzier as the standards and apps develop more around a more online model.
Actually I see no reason for the data to be exclusively on the server. It's just the way things are presently programmed. For a web-app to work the data and results have to be in both places anyway (entered by you, seen by you).
Also web-apps is the modern name to what use to be called "ASP". Nobody here is asking such existential questions about that. Me things it's more a "fear" thing than anything else. That's why this topic has been popping up so much, and it explains the hostility.
The ironic thing is how often you hear people give this as a valid reason to not use web hosted email/services/etc, and then back up their files once every 6 months tops.
Truthfully I trust Google to back up my email and documents WAY MORE than I would EVER trust myself to maintain any kind of backup regimen. Hell - with the way the Google Filesystem works it is questionable if you even need backups since you can just yank whole nodes and clusters out at random without losing data.
Also - there is nothing from stoping you from downloading the data and backing it up locally on some kind of a schedule. Google apps have great public APIs available to do this sort of thing.
Corporations won't move past the security benefits of domain controllers, and active directory-like servers until a more secure solution is available. So with any real advent of "web-based applications" (which in all reality are apps distributed over a large network), any corporation in it's right mind will insist on versions of these brave new apps being distributed to be ran off of Intranet servers (the principle is exactly the same on an Intranet as it is on the Web).
The real concern is bandwidth limits, however as Moore's law has been thus accurate on... Technology will change at an exponential rate... So in all reality web-based applications are in fact a potential replacement for local applications.
So, sorry to Matt from Madtux; but one should never state absolutes when it comes to technology... Because tech is always changing.
As far as as non-UI aspects, sometimes I prefer my data on the network sometimes local depending on the situation or application. Google gagets, bookmarks, calendar, etc have been indispensable by the fact I can access my data from any computer anywhere. My banking data is always on the network (online banking) and I have no choice but to trust them with my security. If you often move between different computers (laptop/desktop, work/home/school, United States/United Kingdom, Earth/Mars) and want access to your life, there's no better alternative than online data, unless there becomes a much easier way to carry it one's person without losing it.
What I find most interesting is the thought of hybrids: From a development viewpoint, why not a web application that only works locally (for now) -- it's already mostly ready as a distributed app (layered, handles user sessions, etc) if the developer ever needs to a port a component or piece of code onto a client/server architecture or SOA.
Fewer and fewer people that I know even own a desktop computer any more; most have a set-up similar to my own: a couple of laptops and a file/print server in the basement. In fact, the only desktop use that I personally encounter any more is at work.
I regularly use my laptop when I don't have an internet connection, for whatever reason, and being dependent on some network storage would severely cramp my style. People synchronize their laptops with network storage for a reason.
Someday, when internet access is ubiquitous, I'll buy into replacing desktop apps with distributed (in whatever form) apps, but I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we're even close. And, to be frank, while Google has some outstanding applications, the word processor and spreadsheet aren't even close to adequate for non-trivial use.
--- SER
Here is a related article called Hosted vs. Local applications on StealThisIdea.
This article lays out the use cases, spelling out the tradeoffs for various users and situations.
First, don't forget that a web-app can run on an intranet, and not be accessible by the internet.
Second, a highly skilled disgruntled employed could probably steal information just as easily from his desktop.
There probably are some apps which are best not ran remotely, but not for reasons cited here.
I still can't see large companies wanting to rely on an outside service provider to host core applications, keep their data safe, and have full uptime. I especially can't see this happening now or anytime in the near future. Web GUIs are a lot better than they were a few years ago, but no amount of AJAX, .NET or whatever can make up for the fact that the app is being served over the network.
What I do see is a march back to centralized computing. Thin clients, blade PCs, etc. are all the rage now. It's a cycle...dumb terminals in the 70s and 80s, PCs in the 80s and 90s, web-based apps and thin clients in the 00s.
A large company might embrace a web application if they were allowed to host it. In the mainframe era, everyone's terminal was hard-wired into a big box in the data center. The company owned and maintained it. I can only see a small or medium business wanting to trust that Google Apps is up and running today. If it isn't...work's over, go home.
Also, there's the issue of privacy. Even if you don't care about privacy issues (and very few people actually do, especially the Web 2.0 generation,) you have to think about what would happen if your app provider got hacked. What kind of liability does, say, Salesforce.com or NetSuite have if someone pulls a "Glengarry Glen Ross" and steals your sales leads??
Yet again, recall: 'There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in the home' Ken Olson, Present, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 It won't be long before we access the same virtual desktop from anywhere in the world.
-Tim
you lost my vote at "and a file/print server in the basement". Sure it happens, but what you're describing isn't mainstream behavior.
That said, I don't feel strongly against the bulk of your argument. Thin clients bring the kind of portability that I'm sure will be embraced eventually. Gaming rigs can still execute net booted code locally so with high-speed networking it becomes more and more a no-brainer.
Quack, quack.
Did we not just have a very similar conversation?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
i think the fact that google earth is still a desktop app and not a web app, is a pretty clear indication that the desktop rules the experience. i own this lovely hardware and i damn well plan on using it to its full potential. why not admit that the concept of computing and applications is changing and in the foreseeable future, its going to be a merger of the two? data can come from anywhere, but resources for the UI can render best locally...
Dear Everyone,
There is no all-in-one bullet proof solution to every IT issue/problem. Stop looking, stop asking.
Cordially,
Bean
P.S. It's a good thing!
Really the only distinction I see is "were is the work being done?" From thin/fat-clients to apps entirely on either machine. Even gaming will not be a big obstacle (the nature of Ethernet and TCP/IP are part of the problem).
You can achieve a much higher level of collaboration when using web apps. Case in point: TurboTax allows the internet community at large to verify your tax returns. This is just not possible with a desktop application.
Agreed. I do however see a fundamental change when things like MRAM come to computers (thin or otherwise). Always on and "start were you left off" capability. I also see were "fragment" programming (both audio and graphics*) will become more important.
*Note graphics, not video although this is already handled in NLE's by editing a reduced copy and then instructing the changes to the original.
As it currently exists, no. But check out WPF from Microsoft, it's what Java in the browser should have been. Miguel Whatisface from the Mono team is scared of it.
How come I care about having a huge hdd and fast memory and data buses or whatever if I am content to move all my apps to the net? I know my questions are stupid and demonstrate my ignorance both computers and TFA but I don't get it. When web apps are made more viable and broadband internet connections are truly ubiquitous will I really need a computer or will I essentially be using a dumb terminal? Am I completely misunderstanding the nature of web apps? When I use Google doc or whatever it is called is that sort of like back when all the processing work was done by mainframes or is my processor actually involved in what happens? Why is a noob like me posting on slashdot? Will this be modded waaaayyy down? Will I ever be able to stop typing and hit "submit"?
I only scored 35% on the Nerd Test, I'm sorry.
Example, I'm on an airplane, so now I can't get any work done?
http://www.ektasis.com
Can banks ever truly replace mattresses?
Will webapps replace my "desktop" apps? Well, no. I don't trust some other site to do a good job with my stuff, because I understand that those sites are administered by idiots like me.
And as for "big corporations gooood! trust big corporations!", I got over that one a long time ago.
(I put desktop in quotes, because I tend to read mail using emacs with the MH-E package, over a ssh terminal when necessary. One of these days I suppose I'll install a webmail package of some sort, but...)
Firefox will have offline browser mode where things like gmail.com, google office and other websites will still function to a degree while not connected to the net. The solves the offline/online thing. Microsoft will have to think hard, because once this is implemented, then web applications can work offline, regardless of your platform. That's my NZD$0.2c.
First of all, "web apps" do NOT mean "apps run by a third party you do not control". Most companies have their own web server, do they not? And there is NOTHING stopping them from putting a Java application server on it and serving up Struts applications to their employees.
If you rephrase the question as "Will companies begin hosting their own applications on their web servers and abandon the client-server model they were burdened with in the 1990's", then I'd say the answer is "yes". Definitely.
Take my shop for example. For over a decade, they were using Oracle 2000 forms (circa 1996). After I joined, we moved to 10G, and I built a couple of 10G application servers and made sure that the developers got the 10G tools. We rebuilt all our forms and reports and targeted web delivery; we put them on our new, shiny application servers. All of the data, the code, everything resides on the application server and our database. Our users have nothing installed on their PCs whatsoever (except for JInitiator, and our SSL cert).
The applications look exactly like the old ones, only they're delivered over the web via a browser. They work exactly the same way -- we were very careful about that.
Now, everything's the same -- we get exactly what we had before. Also we are in complete control of the application. We can prevent any individual user from accessing it at will, right at the firewall, and we can control permissions via database roles. We don't have to worry about users trying to fiddle around with software at their desktop, or messing with configuration files or something, because they've got nothing to play with.
Best of all, we don't have to roll anything out to anybody, because it's all server-side code.
Unless your users need to use something heavyweight like Photoshop, there's no reason whatsoever to roll applications out to the desktops. Sure, give them word processors, a web browser, and maybe an email client (although you can give them webmail too, ALSO on your web server!). But that's about it.
Provisioning their machines should be as easy as rolling out a standard image complete with web shortcuts to your site's tools.
It's the future, man. No doubt about it. Of course, HOME users will stick with regular applications if they're smart...
NO CARRIER
Java couldn't do it, therefore it can't be done.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's already happened and is happening!
The apps are there (google spreadsheets/documents/mail, zoho, box.com, yahoo mail, etc)
Even things like video editing are (jumpcut)
And the big boys are gearing up the infrastructure (Google's Web Services, Amazon's Cloud/Storage Services)
Truth is....online apps ARE desktop apps.
"Open Source and Linux Has No Place in OLPC"
"The Top 5 Things I Hate About Linux"
Either the guy is an opinionated moron, or he is simply paid by Microsoft to attack any technology that threatens Microsoft's cash cows.
In addition to any technologies Adobe may be making for the web browser, you also must consider Adobe Apollo which is Adobe's attempt at incorporating web languages into desktop applications. You can look at it either way, this technology is promoting desktop apps, and web apps. On one hand, it is getting people with knowledge of html/css and mxml to create desktop technologies, and it is also getting people to learn web languages, so possibly in the future, that person will be making a web application.
Right now it is merely too early to tell, but my guess is that desktop applications will be around forever (have to remember games), but as internet speeds continue to speed up, you can surely expect more rich applications (also using that nifty bandwidth.)
What ever happens in the future, Google is taking over the world, one decimal place at a time.
Quit yelling.
One of the best things about web apps is also, in a way, their biggest failing. The ability to upgrade the application for everyone in one fell swoop is really advantageous from a deployment standpoint. On the other hand what if I like the old version better? I've yet to see a web app that lets me use older versions...
I think the basic structure of the Internet would be better if servers were completely eliminated from the loop. Speeds, hard drive storage and all that stuff I only vaguely understand as a noob are are getting better all the time. Servers are just bloated tubby middlemen. If we could host sites on our personal computers in a peer-to-peer, node based way, the load could be balanced across all of the people who are using any particular service.
And everything would be FOSS, privacy would be protected, microsoft would crumble and President Bush would be impeached.
Do you remember 1990? Everybody was doing Turbo Vision Programs using Borland Dos IDEs. Luckily at that time the funciton key assignments for DOS program where settled. Press F1, get help, press F10 and something else happes (i think it was calling the menu). AFAIR F2 was save and alt+key breought you directly in the menu. That was efficient, i can tell you. The beginning of GUIs was good. I likes OS2. clear concepcts and the programmers stuck up with the concepts. Then it go a little worse. All these "Visual Basic Morons" started to change the meaning of the ok or of the cancel button. They made seemingly unmodal guis, which where modal. Then another big thing happend: the confused, old, awkyard world of X11 on linux educated prgrammers to forget what they learned. Shaping buttons in the same way as all other buttons on the os was not longer considered a good programming practice.
Finally the web came. Everybody places buttons where he wants, they do what he thinks might be funny and the way in how to press them is different each time. Keyboard shortcuts are not available and a funciton to print does not exist (just print hte web page). Because JS and flash are used improperly, something which was executable on a 16MHz computer in 1990 now is slow on a 3GHz Pentium. You have the constant feeling that the programmer did not use the network but constantly worked against the shortcoming of packing everthing into AJAX (which most people seem not to understand).
Obviously, the web browser is the correct interface to every
... I do keep my personal files and
application, whether local or remote, whether 3D accelerated
(full-screen the tab if it's a game) or plain text or a command-line.
The only button that's missing from the distribution model is one
indicating how much of your application is cached
locally, and a way to trash the local cache if you don't want it
anymore. The reason for this is two-fold. First: Version Hell. It
boils down to the fact that without exception people are more
interested in having the latest and best than having personal
ownership. That's why people flock to theaters, watch Network
television, read the newspaper, or use Google documents. The only
small exception is personal documents, which some people may choose not
to back up over the network. That's pretty stupid, if you ask me,
since it becomes inaccessible except from your local cache (the hard
drive). The idea to get into is: The hard-drive is like your
browser's cache.
Why would you save a document you just wrote into your browser's temp
directory instead of somewhere more permanent and accessible?
The second reason all of your hard-drive is just a cache for
applications off of the Internet is that the idea of limiting your
application usage to the 500 gigabytes or so you can install at a time
on your personal computer is like trying to get a travelling salesman
to come to your house with exactly 1 suitcase full of everything
you'll ever need ever again. It's absurd!
On the Internet, why limit yourself to 1 suitcase full of products,
except if it's networking equipment or personal data you've produced
locally and don't want to send out over the network? It's like going
to an outdoor music festival and tying your shoelaces to your tent.
The question isn't about getting a long-enough shoelace to where you
can go everywhere you want in the venue, while retaining the security
of being able to notice if anyone is stealing your tent. The question
is, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING TYING YOUR SHOELACES TO YOUR TENT?
Local apps that aren't just caches off the Internet are an issue of
"what the fuck are you doing".
Though I guess maybe broadband has me spoiled. I just don't see why
I'd consider my 500 GB hard-drive as anything other than a cache of the
applications I'm most interested in
settings on a thumb drive, but applications? So 1998.
this has already been attempted and it failed because no scheme can guarantee that a program will function identically on all platforms.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... of course there is ALWAYS going to be a place for locally-run applications.
... this is the difficult bit ... they don't have any wireless hardware. Difficult, isn't it? As a free extra, we'll aslo get to escape the risk of the wireless triggering the explosives we sometimes use. Which is great, because currently when we use explosives, we have to lock the wireless-capable (not necessarly -enabled, just -capable) equipment into an office in a steel box. Not my paranoia, but the documented procedures of the companies that handle the explosives.
Like, if I'm out in the field collecting data for a week, carrying my equipment on my back, I'm going to be mighty miffed at having to miss carrying 5kg of rock samples back to the office because I'm going to have to carry 5kg of batteries to re-charge the Iridium box to get access to a 9600bps link to the Internet in order to fill out the expenses spreadsheet for the batteries for the Iridium and the phone bills incurred.
And we haven't even begun to get into "security". I'm trying to get a number of my colleagues (for my employers AND for competitor companies) to persuade laptop manufacturers to make laptops that have ZERO risk of wireless hacking and data theft because
Newest, brightest, shiniest, koolest technology does not necessarily equal "best", or even "appropriate". It all depends on the job to be done and the circumstances under which it needs to be done.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Web apps, may replace desktop apps, when I can use a web-browser to upload a folder by clicking a button.
Anyone know how to use the open option in a browser to upload a folder (without zipping first)?
Granted, this is not a big ask....but I can not see any replacement happening until this issue is resolved.
It is obvious that, web-applications would be better, if web-clients can provide some more functionalities. May be a restricted (memory, processes and file) sandbox to execute code in client side. We need to depend on, for example, java for this.