And another piece to add to the argument...
This one by Scoble:
[my original argument and follow up about the impending 'death' of the browser]
You can read what Robert is referring to from Ray Ozzie here....that would have explained why Ray believes that the Web won’t deliver the most interesting experiences online. You go try to build Second Life in AJAX. I’ve seen it done and it’s not pretty....
[my original argument and follow up about the impending 'death' of the browser]
4 Comments:
you didn't respond to the claims i made in your post. why do you want to make software harder?
no one ever said Ajax can do everything. it doesn't turn the browser into some kind of virtual desktop. it just allows web apps to be a little snappier.
the key to getting the most out of the web medium is not trying to make something it's not; that's doomed to failure. you have to think about what it does well and change the problem accordingly to fit it. it'll require some creative thinking, which isn't very popular at herd-mentality silicon valley parties.
Well, I think we are probably saying the same thing, really.
The thing is that browsers are desktop apps. To run an app within an app seems silly. Why not desktop apps that are networked? I know loads of desktop app developers who will tell you that developing for the desktop is not trivial, but neither is developing for the browser.
Browsers are actually really great rendering engines for pages.
I agree that everyone is jumping on the web bandwagon right now and too many have proclaimed the death of the desktop. I just think the desktop needs to be thought of as a browser in itself...especially since we are so networked.
I know I'm flip flopping, but maybe I just approached it wrong? I think in the end we all agree theoretically that running apps in apps on OS's is inefficient.
Tara
If you think running apps in apps on an OS is ineffecient, stop using Windows/Aqua/Gnome/KDE (my guess would be you're using Aqua on OSX) altogether. Whatelse is a graphic desktop but an app on top of the OS (no matter what MS tells you)?
We have already been using apps inside apps since we abandoned the commandline. There are many good arguments why certain apps are better off stand-alone then inside (current) browsers, but the simple fact that they are apps in apps doesn't cut it.
It also paves the way for a re-emergence of something we're still trying very hard to get rid of, and for which having apps not directly run on the OS has been a great help:
"Windows only"
Second Life is an excellent example. I still can't run SL on Linux. And Apple-users are always lagging behind Windows-users when it comes to networked software that needs local clients.
Tara,
Give it a break. Is this some attention grabbing contrarian play or do you really buy into this desktop over web rambling?
Most of your points revolve around bandwidth issues that will be moot within a couple of years. It's like saying mobile apps will never take off because mobile bandwidth sucks.
Let me address your points one by one:
1 We are really constrained by browsers. Think about it. People saw AJAX and went, "oooooo, ahhhhhh!" but we've been able to drag and drop on our desktops forever.
No, we're actually really constrained by operating systems.
2 Browsers suck up a great deal of virtual memory. They are an OS on an OS, basically now.
Desktop applications suck up a great deal of virtual memory. Have you run Outlook recently? Or Photoshop? Yes, a browser is basically an OS unto itself. The point is that it doesn't constrain you like your OS does. You can run the same app on any browser, on any computer, from anywhere. You don't have to deal with licensing, you don't have to deal with CPU problems, and it's a lot less likely that your computer will crash.
3 We have to type in addresses to get to applications. Websites run applications. But instead of just clicking naturally, we type in an address, then fill in login information, then click.
So what you're basically saying is that we need a company that let's people customize their homepages with links to their favorite web applications so that they don't have to type them each time they want to go there. Oh wait, I think google has a plug in for that that works on their personalized home page.
4 All of our information is stored in the ether. If we want to store it on our own machines, we have to take an extra step. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Now why would I want to store all my information on one computer where someone can steal my laptop, or my HD can crash, or I can only access it when I have that computer with me?
5 And speaking of information in the ether. Wouldn't it be good to work offline whenever we wanted to and have it update when we are re-connected?
WOW, I didn't realize it was that hard to get internet access in San Francisco. Must be hard. Hey, it's called vision. Yes, the entire nation is not wired, but 5 years ago, broadband was pretty rare too. In another 5 years 90% of the nation will have high speed access and most major cities will be covered with city wide wifi.
6 Have your browser crash recently? Any backup? Restoration of where you were? Heh. I'd think that would be pretty basic. No?
Have your computer crash recently? Any backup? Most desktop apps don't back up your info anyway. This feature can just as easily built into a web app. This is really a ridiculous point as most of the time your browser crashes when your OS crashes.
7 The webtop gives us a much smaller working space.
So hit "f11" and full size your browser. This is an interface problem, not a problem with browsers.
8 There is this whole having to design for browser compatibility thing that would be done with - just design for OS compatibility.
WOW. I'm going to let you think about this. Seriously. Are you really comparing coding for OS compatibility to coding for browser compatibility? It's not even remotely the same thing. The whole point is that with a browser app you can run it on ANY browser with some tweaking. Coding for multiple software platforms is not about tweaking, it's about doing a hell of a lot more work than that.
9 I, personally, want to be able to read stuff offline. I want that to be solved.
Ya, again, you're in SF. Not Idaho. And in 5 years this won't be an issue any more.
10 I know, I know...your web pages...your blogs, etc. Well, that is the only part that needs to be solved...although RSS solves much of that.
Yes, RSS does. But personally, I'd much rather let a service provider handle the issue of downloading and managing those RSS feeds.
11 Just think! No more stupid search! Search is sooo broken. I want find. There has to be something smarter...
Search is so broken? How is this even remotely related to your point? You have the same problems searching for information on your hard drive as you do on the web. AND, unless you plan to live in your own little cosmos, you're going to need to reach out to the web to access the massive knowledge base that it is and USE search.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home