Where we already don't need the browser
Julesit comments on my Browsers R.I.P. post very succinctly here:
The browser...that's a desktop application. I don't think most people think about it like that. Really. (for example) So, we run applications within applications? Pages are a different story, but we are starting to see verticals emerge that could be built into desktop apps.
One commenter asked about Amazon...why not have a desktop app that learns your tastes and can perform a search that does a price comparison across the web? Holds your credit data encrypted where you can control it at the source? Records your attention data in a place where you can keep it from spammers? You define what you let 'out there', but you always benefit because you are recording your own data.
Way back when, when we were first connected by those tubes (heh), we exchanged data this way - person to person. The browser was one way to render this information, but not the only way.
Anyway...maybe there will still be a browser...but it won't be the center of our collaborating, app running universe. It will be used for...um...browsing. Heh. But it won't be the epicenter of the web as we know it today.
I like 'connected' desktop apps - from the Clipart viewer in MS Office on Windows, through to Flickr import/export in iPhoto - cut out the middle-man between my client and the server.Exactly. I use iTunes more for browsing (and buying...sorry) music and syndicating podcasts. I could totally do that online. I wish it wasn't on a proprietary tool (Songbird is not ready for my Mac yet). I sync my iPhoto with Flickr and Riya - but why couldn't I store all of that data on my desktop? I pull in RSS for my events to my iCal. I use iMeem, Skype, Adium, etc. I already mentioned email. I used to use Limewire. (heh...that's before I moved to the US) Chris has all of these desktop apps, most of which are web-connected.
(Hey, we could call this idea client-server computing!).
I like interconnected desktop apps too (iLife/iWork suite) rather than 80s style standalone apps, which is what web apps are.
The browser...that's a desktop application. I don't think most people think about it like that. Really. (for example) So, we run applications within applications? Pages are a different story, but we are starting to see verticals emerge that could be built into desktop apps.
One commenter asked about Amazon...why not have a desktop app that learns your tastes and can perform a search that does a price comparison across the web? Holds your credit data encrypted where you can control it at the source? Records your attention data in a place where you can keep it from spammers? You define what you let 'out there', but you always benefit because you are recording your own data.
Way back when, when we were first connected by those tubes (heh), we exchanged data this way - person to person. The browser was one way to render this information, but not the only way.
Anyway...maybe there will still be a browser...but it won't be the center of our collaborating, app running universe. It will be used for...um...browsing. Heh. But it won't be the epicenter of the web as we know it today.
8 Comments:
you want to make software harder than it is?
instead of just programming on the server end, you'd then have to create both server and client. the only way to create a good desktop program is to program in the language the OS is implemented in -- C/C++. this takes us back 15 years.
on the other hand doing server-side development without having to worry about browser quirks would be cool.
but if you don't see why developing a web app has tremendous advantages over desktop apps for startups and small businesses, you're clueless. being able to instantly deploy improvements in your application is a megawin.
fuck coding in C++.
oh, and by the way, you have no idea how hard learning fickle user preferences in a wide variety of product domains is, even with abundant training samples, which a site like amazon.com will almost never have.
One thing the browser did do: it more-or-less standardized the UI's "usability" factors: similar to the way the Mac's UI was proliferated to all Mac apps, browsers have tended to implement the UI in very similar ways (if you've used one browser you can pretty easily use another). This made a tremendous difference in the Windows world where previously every app you used had different UI perspectives.
This is not my area of expertise, but isn't the challenge here mobile? Wouldn't moving all this stuff back to the desktop make it too heavy for mobile apps?
Check out Adobe's next project, codenamed Apollo. The product will allow developers to do exactly what you're talking about.
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo
Check out Adobe's new project, codenamed Apollo. The product will allow developers to do exactly waht you're talking about much more easily.
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo
Did you just point at Chris's Flickr stream to make the point that Flickr is not the way to collaborate?
I agree with your metaphor, we're running applications inside applications. Though if I go back in time, it's even more absurd. We run applications inside applications inside applications -- in the early 80's the GUI was an application, not yet part of the operating system. That changed.
We run those apps because they exist, do something useful and we want to use them. We can stop anytime.
Do a quick search on Google and you'll find some sweet apps that let you exchange pictures peer-to-peer, from your computer to someone else's computer. Try those for size.
You'll have to dig a bit further, maybe Wayback machine, but you'll also find applications that do price comparison. Yes, they do exist. Not highly successful though, since they were too costly to maintain, deliver to a wide audience, and without the attention data (source of revenue) not very competitive.
There are exceptions. Skype for bandwidth. Photoshop/SecondLife for CPU/memory. Adium for UI integration. iTunes/Picasa for storage/devices.
But otherwise, building applications on the Web is cheaper and faster, there's less maintenance costs, and that value is passed on to the users. I'm not seeing users that are motivated to pay more for non-obvious gains.
Hello!
[quote]
instead of just programming on the server end, you'd then have to create both server and client. the only way to create a good desktop program is to program in the language the OS is implemented in -- C/C++. this takes us back 15 years.[quote]
Exactly. What do you think of Google Earth 4 - it works both on Linux and Windows !
Roman
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home