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

a more appropriate question:

[yagu]

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?

Re:a more appropriate question:

[dreamchaser]

There isn't always a compelling reason an application needs to run on a desktop

There are even fewer compelling reasons to run most applications via the web though. Frankly, I think web based apps are more at home on the Intranet than the Internet. The data security will *never* be quite good enough for me to trust any even remotely sensitive data to a Data Center not under the control of my organization, be it family or corporation.

Re:a more appropriate question:

[MBGMorden]

I think you've hit the nail on the head with distribution.

As a user, and in my personal life, I HATE web based apps. I avoid them like the plague. They take my data out of my hands, often have an advertisement thrown in somewhere, require an active net connection at all times, and first and foremost they simply don't feel as responsive as a desktop application. There's also a lack of consistency. For example, for my online banking I'm pretty much forced to use the web apps that the banks use (no desktop equivalent available). I have accounts with 4 different banks. All of them have basically the same functions, but I have to learn 4 different web apps to use them. If they had a standard protocol that could tie back to a desktop app it would alleviate that problem.

On the other hand, working in IT, I love deploying and managing them. There are no software installs to perform and keep updated on lots of desktops. There are no worries about users storing important info on their local machines (even if told to store on their desktops). Also, with the progression towards these I make switching our organization over to a non-Microsoft OS on the desktop more and more possible. The more stuff that runs in the browser the less I have to worry about which OS is on the computers. And truth be told, when I'm work work, I don't really mind the problems mentioned above, because it's WORK. I don't expect my programs and computer at work to be as laid back and streamlined/comfortable as what I want at home, in the same way that I don't mind sitting in an office chair all day long but when I go home I'd toss the thing out the nearest window and get a recliner :).

That being said, the issue of data security is still an extreme concern: even when our users use a web/browser based app, it still better be running off of one of OUR servers in on OUR site.

I think that such apps will increase greatly in the corporate/government world, but that home applications will still be largely desktop in nature.

Who wrote this, a software developer?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Rich Clients

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:One word answer...

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The correct answer is 'web apps will replace desktop apps where appropriate'

Alternative..

[zyl0x]

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.

Re:One word answer...

[slazzy]

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.

pfft

[igotmybfg]

"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!

Re:Doesn't seem to matter where it's stored

[Lockejaw]

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).

In my opinion

[catmandi]

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.

no

[lashi]

no, just like TV never truly replace radio. They will just diverge and serve different functions in the long run.

foolish proposition anyway

[Lazerf4rt]

We are seeing more and more articles appearing with the claim that everything we really need from an OS is available online.

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.

Photoshop Replacement

[acm]

I've always used Photoshop and photo editing as an example of a class of applications that would never make sence to be replaced with a web equivalent. Then someone showed me Snipshot. Check it out, it is pretty intersting. Although it only does very basic photo editing right now, I could see where, in the future, it could support most (all?) the features of Photoshop.

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.

Re:Photoshop Replacement

[MasterC]

Then someone showed me Snipshot. Check it out, it is pretty intersting. Although it only does very basic photo editing right now, I could see where, in the future, it could support most (all?) the features of Photoshop.

Interesting: yes. I will grant it that but that's about all I'll give it. Let me know when it can zoom and edit pixels with the speed of MS Paint (let alone Photoshop or GIMP) then we can label Snipshot a real photo editor. Until then, it's a "photo tweaker" in my book.

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- app.

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.

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.

History keeps failing to repeat itself

[gordgekko]

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.

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.

"

webapps can be more secure than desktops.

[aoteoroa]

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.