Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Microsoft On the Desktop
Michael_Curator writes "Gary Edwards, president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation, helps sort out the challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop, pitting the strengths of Microsoft's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents."
HTML is just another layer of abstraction. It could just as well be Java, or .NET CLR, or cross-compiled C++ (GIMP). There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".
As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud". In fact, there is the Outlook Connector for Windows Live Mail and the Office Live tool for Word XP, 2003, and 2007. Also see IMAP and POP3. Oh, basically anything that doesn't go over port 80.
Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.
But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud. Forget speed, think about reliability. And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage. So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.
To give Microsoft something to seriously think about, Google needs an OS on the desktop. Android is a good start in my opinion. There are some efforts in this direction already. The good thing is that Android eschews X, which is a pain to work with in its current form.
Next, they will need [meaningful] applications that work no matter what platform one happens to be using.
Third, targeting Microsoft must not be the aim, it must be the unplanned outcome. The aim must be tp "please" we the users.
That way, Google will succeed on the desktop.
It really is 'the cloud' though; face it, if you save to google you're saving to a cluster. You have no idea where your data is and you don't care. To say you're saving it to a server is a bit disingenuous. You might as well just draw the good old cloud and lightning bolt ala the network diagrams of old and leave it at that, in most situations.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)
Someone had to introduce problems, incompatibilities, and inconsistency or it wouldn't be a proper standard.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Getting rid of stupid clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications in the browser would be a huge step forward.
You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps. Upgrades are pure nightmare. Couple this with locked down desktops, profiles that has to be managed and policies that needs hard testing before you alter a single setting.
Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any company. Added benefit would be that backend services would be totally decoupled from what OS the client runs. Microsoft will fight this for all they are worth.
HTTP/1.1 400
IE 6 remains a major target that needs to be covered
No, it doesn't. IE 6 is a ghetto, and can be safely ignored. Anyone who currently uses IE 6 and either will not or can not upgrade to a modern browser is someone who isn't terribly concerned about using the types of apps that things like HTML 5 and Gears are meant to make possible.
Actually even my 67 year old clueless dad has a USB external with one touch backup. Those things are really dirt cheap now and most folks have been burnt at least once in the past and are naturally a little spooked about losing all their stuff.
Which kinda spooks me about this whole "push to the cloud" thing. Not only do you have the whole privacy issue, because you have no idea who is looking at your data, but lets be honest here, even Google has occasionally just went "oops, sorry about that" when it has come to folks data. I know I have Gmail go offline for a day or two at a time, and what if one of those days I had been on the road and having that data was "mission critical" for a job? And look at how many "web 2.0" style companies we have had go tits up in the past couple of years, and with the economy like this I would expect to see plenty more. When a company is struggling, which you may not even have a clue about, the odds that they are going to spend the money to do best data backup practices is virtually nil. Then what happens when the server dies, or the drive that contained your data goes tits up? "Ooops, sorry about that" as most of these companies have it in their TOS that they pretty much ain't responsible for jack.
So no thanks. I can slap a cheap USB drive and back up my data anytime. I even have my data partitioned to where I can back up all the important stuff to DVD without having to back up the whole OS. I can encrypt the backups so nobody can use them but me, slap the USB or DVDs in my laptop bag and have them wherever I go, even if the place I end up at has "10k on a good day" dialup, which you'd be surprised how many places in the USA are still like that. So I think I'll just stick with what works no matter how good or poor a net connection I have tomorrow is, or without having to worry about whether or not the cloud company is doing well financially or using best backup and privacy practices. Call me weird but I like being in control of my data, thanks ever so much anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Hey, uh, wasn't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum (along with sam and marbux) when he didn't get his way with preserving Microsoft "dark matter" (undocumented RTF encoding) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it doesn't shine??
I am shocked. Simply shocked to see that he's extolling Microsoft's "virtues".
Nothing to see here, folks, just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.
--
BMO
True story though - I was showing a member of the younger generation a floppy disk that I had lying around, and the first thing he said was, "ah, it looks like the 'save' icon!". To many of the younger generation, the icon is an abstract concept meaning "save", not a representation of a disk.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan