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?"

Comments

Can good articles ever replace crappy articles?

[sootman]

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.

Re:Rich Clients

[AKAImBatman]

They don't tell you the details of the transaction. I've been party to enough of these deals to know that either Proctor and Gamble is requesting special conditions (e.g. host it themselves -OR- have secure access to the backend -OR- Google has to do a whole bunch of security audits to be certified), or they're only using it in a trial group somewhere in the dark corners of the company. The press releases always make these things seem more impressive than they really are.

pfft.. check out your own citation online

[way2trivial]

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.

"

Spelling out the use cases

[Anonymous Coward]

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.