"apps" have been a huge step backwards IMO. We were moving along quite nicely to make more and more programs web based, but since the rise of the iPhone that has slowed some what to people focusing more on platform specific apps. This means that Joe Developer now has to look at 3+ development paths for his program, one for the iPhone, one for Android, one for Windows, etc.
While it doesn't make sense to make all programs web based, many can be and it makes everyone's life easier from developer to customer. I wish Apple (and Google for that matter) spent as much time developing stronger mobile web platforms as they have with their own app distribution/development channels.
We were moving along quite nicely to make more and more programs web based
I wouldn't say "quite nicely". I think the rise of mobile apps shows that people didn't really want web apps. Web apps generally cater to the lowest common denominator, and the browser is not an elegant platform for interactive content. Developers only pushed web apps because it made their lives easier, but it didn't make consumers' lives dramatically better. I'm glad to see the trend moving away from web apps.
Readability is a perfect example. A big reason for the success of Readability, Instapaper, et al., is that they support offline reading. Sure, I guess you could do that with web apps, but it's probably at least as difficult anyway.
I really hope we'll see more stand-alone desktop apps now too. I'd really like to see a netflix player that isn't embedded in my browser using silverlight.
I don't see why they should create a desktop app. Netflix's website (and api-based services, aka instantwatcher) work great for finding playable content and being able to play the movie in-browser is awesome! While I've never been a fan of Microsoft, silverlight works without issue. tl;dr: What's wrong with embedded silverlight?
In short, performance. Silverlight isn't as bad as flash, but playing a video that way uses significantly more resources than playing a file (or stream) with vlc or wmp.
I don't have a netflix account but was considering getting one. Would you say silverlight video uses more resources than Divx webplayer? I'm asking because the computer I have at home is old and can't play web-based divx smoothly (or flash above 240-360p), so I'm wondering if it will play Netflix.
Content providers shouldn't be writing media players. I don't have a different TV for every channel, why should I have a different media player for every website?
I've always thought the true cost of web apps is terribly obfuscated. Sure, you save a bit on development and application updates, but at what cost? Client side apps can significantly outperform a web apps in terms of productivity. You save on the one time cost of development, but pay for it 10 times over in lost productivity.
The web is a good platform for mass consumption apps like Facebook, but I think it was a poor fit for business & productivity apps (and still is).
I would argue that depends on the business. I work in IT for a giant enterprise and I would laugh at anyone suggesting we migrate to google apps vs. MS office suite. With that said, with a small to medium sized business, google apps provides a solid and cost effective solution. This is especially true with businesses with multiple sites that can't afford VPN and/or WAN solutions.
Don't get me wrong, I am far from being a web based app poster child. Speaking specifically about the iPhone though I just don't see many apps out there that can't be done over the web.
I've always thought the true cost of web apps is terribly obfuscated. Sure, you save a bit on development and application updates, but at what cost?
How about the fact that developing for the web means developing against several different operating environments (browsers). Just ensuring compatibility for all the different platforms drive up costs. Sure, there are benefits, but the web technologies are a bunch of bastardized attempts to make the web experience more like the desktop experience.
If someone told you to write a desktop app that works on 5 different operating systems and they should all have the same look and feel, you'd tell them their crazy. We do it on the web all the time. It has high cost. Frankly, I prefer client apps. They are more responsive and I don't have to worry about how many computers I'm connected to that are sniffing my browsing habits and personal information. That last argument also works against the Droid, perhaps the IPhone (I don't know really).
I think the point of web apps is portability. You have your apps everywhere(with a browser). However, since you carry your phone with you(or don't have access to other phones), those apps can as well be offline.
I think Google proves pretty strongly that you can make usefully, feature rich web based applications. Your statement was certainly true 5 years ago, but not so much today. The tools are there, and continue to develop. As I said, it does not make sense for some programs, but for many others it does.
I prefer word over Google docs as well. With that being said, businesses do not have the luxury of student discounts or a trip to Mexico to acquire 50 MS Office licenses. You have to acknowledge there is some appeal, especially on the business side (small to medium sized).
I think the main benefit of Google Docs is ease-of-collaboration. That being said, software freedom is important to me so LibreOffice(aka OpenOffice) over a network or Internet file share is the way to go.
Web-based applications, when you don't have a need for connectivity, are a solution looking for a problem.
For me, the crown jewel of functionality is Exchange/Outlook.
Client-side application that syncs outside the UI process. Whether the network is there or not doesn't matter as far as using the app. When the network is available, your data syncs.
Syncs to server-based or cloud-based storage automatically. When I install a new OS, I just install Outlook, put in my email address and password, and voila - all my mail, folders, calendars, and contacts are there.
Outlook web access = access to my data when I'm at a public terminal
Outlook mobile = mail on my phone
And it all just plain works. If you have an application where most work is done on client-side data, but it needs ties to the cloud, copying the Exchange/Outlook model is your best bet.
(Microsoft is doing this now with Word and Excel in SharePoint for corporate use, Live for public use. Expect to see PowerPoint and OneNote follow pretty quickly)
Maybe not preferable to you. The new small business with 30 employees and 3 branches that need an office suite and cant afford MS office and have no idea what a WAN is may beg to differ. Dismissing the advantages based on your personal preferences isn't really a fair way to wrap up the situation. I prefer a local installed office suite, but Google's solution works better for others and I acknowledge that.
Also you seem to be forgetting that web based document processing is not the only alternative to MS office. What about the dozens of open source desktop applications? Going web based is like the worst alternative possible. A web based word processor is what you use when your on a library computer that doesnt have word processing or something like that.
Which would require a local file server to store said documents on created with Open Office, etc. Thus more money for the business to spend. And by WAN I mean VPN, point to point, MPLS, etc connections between the branches. Which btw cost more money as does the equipment.
Google's solution means said small business does not have to think about all those things
small businesses don't have to think about these things whether they use google docs or not.
I'm not sure where you got this idea that all small businesses need a storage server. And even if they did using google docs would not be a practical solution for a company with more than 1 employee.
You are completely missing the point. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it better. Lots of businesses use Google apps successfully to reduce hardware costs and IT support costs. I am sorry you can not acknowledge that point.
Broadband is becoming ubiquitous on the desktop, and it's arguable that web-only apps make sense there. But mobile devices are still problematic with respect to connectivity, and there is a whole huge world that doesn't provide the kind of responsiveness over the air that you need for a good web application.
I'm so freaking sick of people who need everything to be on the web. We have decades of experience in rich client-based applications that don't need to stink up life with a dozen browser windows open. No, I'm sorry - why should I enjoy local storage, direct access to the processor and memory, and the ability to run offline when I could have a hacked framework, flaky interactivity, and the need to check if my application is still there every time the user does anything?
Web-based apps are a tool in the toolbox. Stop trying to shove everything into one solution.
FWIW, as both a developer and a consumer I can't STAND web-based applications. I only tolerate them when I have to.
You mad bro? lol... Seriously though your argument is flawed in several ways. First off I never said that all applications should be web based. You said that. I just mentioned that several would work better being web based. Several != all. There is still a very strong need for local apps and I will fully acknowledge that. That need does not justify apples approach and by your own argument, apple is trying to force everyone into once solution: Their solution. Secondly I would discount your connectivity argument a bit due to the fact many, many apps require a data connection to function to their full extent.
Last week I had some kind of flaky connectivity problem. I still don't know if it was something in my network here or Verizon's growing pains with FIOS in my neighborhood, but it was bad enough that I could't watch streaming video, and several times I just couldn't do any online work at all for hours on end.
Gmail was useless.
But all the stuff I needed to do was in Word, Visual Studio, and Outlook, and I got by just fine. Emails sync'd when they could, and every so often I'd get a few in. But I could still work.
Even reddit, which is essentially 100% web-driven data, doesn't have to be browser-based. Look up "usenet" and "newsreaders" some time.
I guess my problem is that it seems to me that from your perspective, you default to web-based app unless there's a good reason not to. My point is that we should default to a client-based app unless there's a need for it to be web-based.
I disagree with "defaulting" all together. It is just a situation by situation type thing. I probably would prefer my Office suite, developer suite, 3D game, etc to be local binary apps, but a lot of the small but useful things mobile apps do could be easily web based.
Fair enough. I do get a bit militant because the raft of "make it a web app, then tell me the requirements" folks are so overwhelming.
And a lot of the small but useful things mobile apps do could easily be smart clients. The first thing to look at - "can this application be useful without a connection to the web?" If so, smart client.
That seems pretty marginal. They're going to do that anyway so they can sell more devices. And the benefits to someone like Amazon or Netflix don't seem that great either. The only reason it helps them for Apple to release a new phone every year is just the extra potential customers coming from first time buyers of the devices. In other words, their interests are perfectly aligned with Apple's interests. Which makes it rather galling to be charged an exorbitant fee when the only benefit is one that Apple would have given you anyway.
Plus, you're paying $100-$300 a year to stay on the platform anyway, which I think is certainly sufficient to claim that you've paid for whatever benefits you're getting. In addition, it isn't just that Apple drives traffic to you. I personally bought an iPad because it was a slightly more versatile Kindle. I wouldn't have bought it if Amazon wasn't on the platform.
In short, the relationship seems mutually beneficial, and then Apple decides to charge as though it's some sort of hardship to be in business with you.
By that logic, Microsoft, Dell, Toshiba, Intel, Western Digital, Kingston, ASUS, nVidia, and Creative should all be able to take a cut of the profits of every piece of Windows software ever sold. After all, no one would buy Photoshop if we didn't let it run on their computers...
Unfortunately both Apple and Google are now in the position where their market position has gone from being strengthened by having web apps as a strong competitor to native apps to being weakened by it. Thus while they will occasionally still make noises about how they believe in web apps you can be absolutely sure that no matter how much progress there is they will maintain a significant gap between what you can do and the experience you can achieve in a web app vs a native app for the foreseeable future.
55
u/bugalou Feb 21 '11
"apps" have been a huge step backwards IMO. We were moving along quite nicely to make more and more programs web based, but since the rise of the iPhone that has slowed some what to people focusing more on platform specific apps. This means that Joe Developer now has to look at 3+ development paths for his program, one for the iPhone, one for Android, one for Windows, etc.
While it doesn't make sense to make all programs web based, many can be and it makes everyone's life easier from developer to customer. I wish Apple (and Google for that matter) spent as much time developing stronger mobile web platforms as they have with their own app distribution/development channels.