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?
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
The correct answer is 'web apps will replace desktop apps where appropriate'
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
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 think the best use of web applications will be to complement, not replace, desktop applications. I prefer to use a fatapp for my email because of faster searching and offline reading and writing emails - but I use webmail when I don't have access to my laptop. I would like to have the same ability with office applications.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Never mind security. If it's stored locally, I can always get at it and do what I want with it, even if I'm away from my desk and my WLAN. When I'm not at home, I can only hope that there's accessible wifi (and not one of those subscription-based hotspots).
(IANAL)
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.
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.
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".
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.
The problem with Snipshot is that it will never attain the performance of a desktop app is because it's instructing the server to do all the work and any visual updates require sending another image back to the client after the server has performed them. The browser does zero actual work; it's the only way it can be done within the HTML/JS confines.
It will be the same issue as with video or audio but worse because both are more bandwidth intensive.
My primary complaint about any web app is speed/performance (and I'm not a performance freak, just impatient). The operations Snipshot is performing are trivial and they take a helluva lot longer than GIMP could do them in. Gmail can be dreadfully, painfully slow and is tolerable because I want the convenience.
If my prediction/opinion matters: the end result will be a hybrid with shared data. Sometimes, I just need that raw GIMP power to get crap done. Sometimes, I might be stuck on someone else's computer and not have GIMP and the handful of functions Snipshot can do may be sufficient. The marriage of desktop and web will be when I can tote those images to either app that I need them in at the time I need it. Ditto for email. I want gmail and thunderbird to sync. I want google calendar to sync with my phone and kontact. I want picasaweb to sync with kuickshow/gwenview/ee/name-your-slideshow-desktop
The endgame is proper sharing of data to the app suited for the use. (Psst, just like everything else in life!) No one paradigm will "win" for every application and problem.
:wq