My conclusion (upon which we seem to agree) is that desktop application that take full advantage of the power of internet (ala iTunes, Flickr Uploadr, RSS clients...) will always lead the game, as they combine best features of both worlds: desktop and web-based apps. But in the end, it comes down to what works best for you. Competition will be fierce, but both are not incompatible.

You point out that some of the webtop applications are still quite inneficient - this is absolutely true. And until they become as efficient as the desktop apps, the desktops are not going to go away.

Alex

Why except web based operating systems? Because they try to centralize everything again. Writely inside YouOS? Google Calendar inside Goowy? No, I'd prefer using my apps inside my browser, Firefox.. Why centralizing them again, writing useless JS-APIs. This doesn't mean I'm fully against web based operating systems but I don't see their usage span very very large, replacing today's real operating systems.

I agree with your views on 'webified' desktop apps, I think the windows vista is working on that angle.

What I particularly like about your article(s) is that you see services as just 'commodities' and try to analyze the value they deliver. No wonder desktop and web are just commodities too, what matters is 'productivity'. Right on!

Nikola

It used to be that I simply wouldn't pick up my email with my laptop, because otherwise I'd loose track of what I'd already read and replied to, wind up with some emails on my laptop and others on my desktop, etc. Then I switched to Gmail. Same with documents (Writely) and bookmarks (Del.icio.us). It's nice to go somewhere with my laptop, work on stuff, get home sit down at my desktop, and have all my stuff right there, no hassle.

Web applications have a number of advantages not easily duplicated by desktop applications; sharing, collaboration, platform agnosticism, stability, low risk of data loss, accessibility. Conversely, desktop applications have a number of downsides; they crash, they're prone to data loss and corruption, they usually require manual updates by the user, and the applications and the data itself is only accessible through one computer. Simply "webifying" them doesn't necessarily solve all those problems.

I agree the idea of a centralized "web OS" is stupid though.

The big problem I have with these web based desktops is that the metaphor is just plain wrong.

The desktop on your PC/Mac OS makes sense because it's a metaphor for how you organise your work.

If one was to choose a metaphor for an Intranet it could be and Office building with departments/sections etc..

To choose a metaphor for internet based social software one would have to start thinking in communities like villages/towns/Cities or similar.

For the whole internet then maybe you need the whole planet!! some kind of Google earth metaphor perhaps ;)

regards
Al

Lately, I've been using apps like Writely, Meebo, gOffice, Thumbstacks, RememberTheMilk, Flickr, and Gmail over traditional desktop apps like Office.

At the same time there are always going to be desktop apps that I absolutely need to work effectively - e.g. FTP client, text editor, Eclipse, vpn client, remote desktop, sys utils, etc. etc. I personally use the Windows Quick Launch toolbar as my gateway to these apps. About a year ago, I used Google Desktop exclusively for launching windows apps - using the sidebar quick launch feature. For a variely of reasons I've since removed google desktop search and gone back to my hybrid approach, which I'm content with for the time being.

--Brian

And even wrote (me and my team) a weblication as well: http://www.teamdirection.com/

I'd be curious what you think of our approach.

Thanks!

RIA (Rich Internet Applications), I believe, may have some benefits (universally, remotely accessible etc..) over traditional desktop apps, but its disadvantages far outweigh these benefits. In my opinion, The universally, remotely accessible concept is great but mostly pointless.

Which scenario is more often the case:
1. You using someone else's computer (netcafe etc..) with an internet connection or
2. Using your own (laptop, home/office computer) with or without a connection?

Desktop applications provide more control over all aspects of your computing enviornment, without compromising on our ability to work offline.

John, Your product certainly looks smarter and more usable than many of those web-based project management tools. I'll check it out in detail once get more time.

Ebrahim

According to McAfee and Softpedia, Qube is spyware, malware, adware free.

It'd have been better if you contacted us directly than posting it here. Anyway, what kind of spyware did you get? Can you please send me some screenshot of the scan results so I can see what spyware it is?

Ebarhim Ezzy
i.ezzy@qelix.com

One of our main goals is to provide alternative solution for enterprise internet portal. You can try the online demo at : http://purefect.klorofil.org/demo/

We also provide a web-based IDE to develop Purefect-based applications.

One of our main goals is to provide alternative solution for enterprise INTRANET portal.

Btw, here's the overview of Purefect: http://www.klorofil.org/purefect-desktop-online-demo-available-now

Sorry for that.

For power users, it will be Hybrid. For basic
everyday folks it will be WebOS. Example, Hotmail. Hotmail
exploded the use of email by giving easy to use access to
everyday people.

The issue of data storage is moot. Any company/person
needing their own data on their own server (not always a great idea....think about it...) can just buy a server appliance loaded with the WebOS software. Or the WebOS
software can be pointed to run with data off of someone's
internet connected server.

Most existing desktop apps are bloated and confusing
to the average user. And most are meant to create and
organize information to be communicated to other humans.
So, as Microsoft has found out, the slow but sure march to WebOS, with hybrid clients is inevitable, since this
architecture provides the feature set that users of all
types require.

Ignore it or deny it at your own peril.

Steve Kohler

http://media-tech.blogspot.com/2006/03/linternux-linux-20-avec-le-web-20.html

The problem with Webified Desktop Apps is the lack of interoperability. I need to use Live Space to blog your post from Windows Live mail dekstop. Not cool. I prefer Allpeers than Live Messenger...

It's why the future will be open source (Jabber for instant communication...) It's why i like the Didier Durand vision with its "linternux" buzz...

Sorry for my bad english...

Christophe from France

Desktop makes sense as a desktop, but as a web page it doesn't. Thought needs to be put more into the HCI side of these web based apps rather than just trying to mirror what fat-client applications do. As I said in my blog entry on the same subject (first link on track back), but beacuse we CAN do this doesn't mean that its a good idea.

A browser is nothing but a Graphical User Interface in it's simplest form. As your poll suggests, browser-based applications are more popular. Deployment, installation, hardware compatibility... all of these issues go away with a browser-based application.

Now... if we could get all the browsers in compliance, we'd be a step closer!

Respectfully,
Doug

Great article. I happen to echo your sentiments and went as far as to start a company that fulfills the desktop/web synchronization vision you articulate. The issues you cite as the shortcomings of a web-only world (requirement for a reliable, fast always-on connections, etc)are amplified in a mobile environment. And if the only device I have with me wherever I go, my cell phone, cannot work as one with the center of my life, my desktop, in a better way than mobile web browsing, we are all in a whole lot of trouble (We previously started the company that built the Blazer mobile web browser, the default browser on Treos, and learnt this lesson the hard way).

At Sharpcast, we believe the right user experience is something closer to how in a corporate Exchange server environment, Microsoft Outlook works seamlessly with Outlook Web Access on any browser and a Blackberry mobile device. The user has the choice of interacting with his data in the most optimal way depending on whether he is connected or offline, which one of his devices he is on and so on.

We decided that every application should work like that for consumers and Sharpcast Photos is the first application that demonstrates this user experience. In case you are interested in checking it out, you can do so at www.sharpcast.com. You will see that you are always operating on the same reality across multiple PCs, the web and your mobile, and you never have to do the same thing twice. The real power of the experience is in the underlying platform though, which goes beyond Photos. If you are interested, email me at gthomas at sharpcast dot com, I can send you a link to a 15 minute presentation that tells the full story.

In any event, nice article.

Cheers,

Gibu Thomas
CEO, Sharpcast

Despite all the positive coverage your product recieved, somehow I missed it until now.

Sharpcast is incredibly useful and seems to be the 'ultimate photo sync client' for PC, mobile and web - just as I'd envisioned the 'webified' desktop application to be. It'd be just great if the functionality is extended to also support files, folders, and other multimedia content.

IMO, an application that run on desktop and syncs online as we wish, is far more convenient and productive than an appliction running in a browser-base. There are many perfectly good desktop applications that should just be "webified" for seamless interoperability and for sharing data across the web.

I'd definitely love to check out the presentation you're talking about.

I like SAPs approach which is very much one of evolution and choice, employing a hybrid strategy.

Identity management is a major, major stumbling block but that particular hurdle just has to be overcome, otherwise people really will become disillusioned. It is not for instance without a sense of irony that I note you reference SecondLife which last night reported a serious security breach.

On balance, I'd prefer to see webOS succeed, if nothing else so it stimulates M$ to do the one thing it hasn't been great at for a long time - innovation. Which isn't bad for a Mac fanboy!

That's what we've done with Sidewinder; we've created a cross-platform environment that supports features such as creating windows that dock to the side of the display, can auto-hide, have transparency and opacity, and so on. Sidewinder also allows events that are fired in one window to be registered for in another (allowing applications to be built from smaller pieces).

However, unlike traditional desktop applications that need to be written in C++ or Java, Sidewinder applications are written in either XHTML or JavaScript...or more often than not, both.

So a web application could be as simple as an XHTML file that contains a page with a clock in it, through to a complex application in JavaScript, that in turn creates many XHTML windows and manages events passing between them.

We call these applications 'internet-facing', since they want to be desktop applications, but they have so many internet-related features that they are easiest to built with web technologies such as HTTP servers and XHTML pages. By providing a framework that takes this into account we can get the best of both worlds.

I mentioned that a key idea was the use of standards, and Sidewinder uses XHTML, XForms, SVG and MathML to build applications.

If anyone is interested, we have various demos that show how easy it is to make a web application into a desktop one:

• KoolIM as a desktop chat application;


• Technorati Mini as a desktop application;


• Enhancing your Google Calendars.

Best regards,

Mark

Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port
http://skimstone.x-port.net/

Gibu

Here is a manual trackback for more lengthy feedback on my thoughts.

http://www.touchstonelive.com/blog/2006/09/web-as-platform-with-touchstone-alerts.html

You can easily pick up any site you frequently use, and give it all the charactristics of a desktop app, like a tray icon and menu, minimize to tray, notifications, drag-and-drop abilities and more.

Bubbles is easily extendable with a Greasemonkey-like API allowing you to 'teach old sites new tricks' and essentialy expose the power of the desktop to existing web-apps. For example, a few lines of JS code allow google-calendar to popup notifications for yoru events from the tray, without requiring the browser to be visible.

3D3R, the company behind Bubbles, will soon be unveiling 'Bubbles for Business', which is a platform for web-sites to create executable installers of their sites, giving users a warmer and more comfortable experience.

While I probably need an editor, I thought it useful to try to define Web 2.0 at least with respect to my expectations. That is, looking at it as an evolutionary step (as it is today) or as a revolutionary step (as it could be tomorrow).

The fruits of my typing is here.

A common extrapolation is a future where browser based apps look and behave just like desktop apps, but are downloaded on demand and leave no residual footprint. But will this really happen?

The barriers that I see are:

1. Complex desktop apps are big. Browser apps need to basically download their entire code base per browser session. Sure we're getting more bandwidth all the time, but if I am using a complex app frequently, I want to spend my time using the thing not waiting for it to be transferred. To improve this you need to leave *something* installed on my desktop drive (e.g. ‚ÄúWebOS‚Ä?), but this leads to the same problems we‚Äôre trying to avoid (residual desktop footprint, need for update management, etc). In any case it won't eliminate it because the WebOS can't be all things to all applications.

2. While our bandwidth is going up, so is the install footprint for complex apps.

3. The web based programming languages and development environments aren't up to the task. JavaScript and its ilk are complicated to author, difficult to debug, and don’t scale as well vis-à-vis Java, etc. I would expect that desktop apps will continue to show more sophistication because of development effort differences.

Which will win? Both, because it depends on which applications we’re talking about. I like browser apps for blogging, shopping, and email if I’m in a café. I like installed desktop apps for gaming, developing software and making music. While the line may shift as our web technology improves, there will still be a fundamental split where some applications lend themselves better to one or the other.

‚ÄúWebified Desktop Apps‚Ä? are the natural evolution of desktop apps with connectivity and bandwidth, just as MMORPGs are of single player games. It‚Äôs not about central storage, it‚Äôs about data movement. I want my data to travel with me wherever I go. Every storage device (desktop, handheld, server space) is a cache that needs to be transparently and intelligently managed, each with its own storage and bandwidth characteristics. We require effortless replication but also good conflict management and merge, the latter problem being mostly ignored in the current technology.

I will add that some years ago, the combination of web browser + Java was viewed as the OS killer, with all applications delivered via applets and Java running natively on the hardware, eliminating the need for an OS like Windows. It didn’t happen, though some may claim its still happening (re: WebOS).

* The security and privacy issue is not only imposed on WebOSs, indeed most web services are based on server and client model. Everything we do largely depend on the performance of the server, and potentially there could be a failure of the system and we cannot do anything about the service. Just like we use MSN so often and even though it occasionally fails or rejects us from logging in, we don’t feel as if it’s the end of the world. Fortunately accountablity and stability are something websites and web service providers cherished to have, presumably. The bottom line would be, if you find comfort to transmit or store some sensitive information through or in a public email system, you might not feel less comfort to store them in a WebOS;

* Performance is the next big thing. According to today‚Äôs browser technology, relied on which even a smooth fading effect is not really ‚Äúsmooth‚Ä?, it is such a turn down to imagine a graphic intense WebOS. Yet, the development of technology always turns out to be out of people‚Äôs expectation, in a relatively long term, say 20 years. Now step back from fictions, in the following few years, at least bandwidth won‚Äôt be a bottleneck at all. Internet access? Welcome to the ‚ÄúWireless Matrix‚Ä?, in which Neo doesn‚Äôt have an Ethernet port!

* If you think WebOS as a complement or a backup of DeskOS (what’s the word again?), it would not need direct controls on the devices. How are you going to change your hard-drive? Buy one from eBay and fill in the address of your WebOS host company?

* Web technology is still in its infant age, people are exploring the capabilities. It’s a bit too early to know what they will be like 5 years later. Before the Windows time, was it really clear what was going to come up and dominate the world? People are exploring, everyone is. Yet once people find out they’ve got enough to start with, backwards compatibility would be considered, or, it may not matter at all by then!

* As I’ve mentioned above, WebOS, is a good partener of the DeskOS (still cannot remember its original name), not a step son of it. The idea of having a central WebOS, was largely derived from the trend that people are having more than one terminals in their household and are getting frustrated by the complication of synchronizing these dull computers. They are supposed to communicate with their buddies spontaneously, aren’t they? So will less people have multiple PCs at home? No. Then, the need and the market is big.

* It’s evident that WebOS is not powerful in terms of performance. Admittedly, I don’t think installing a game on my WebOS and play the game using the server’s CPU would ever happen. My thought is, the DeskOS (again~) would retain the power to run games, play movies, make graphics and store downloaded data. While WebOS, stores my Calendar, my Address Book, my Notes, my Documents, my Pictures, and my Works etc.; basically things update frequently, containing non-sensitive information if you want.

Trackback link is on our blog too.

As for the web-desktop debate, I don't exactly want to remain silent, so I won't. I see the computing like I see the food chain. For some growing their own food and making their own meals suits them just fine. For others, they will do fine with McGriddles and 7-Layer Burritos until they die of a heart attack at 49. Then there's the rest of us who occasionally dine out, maybe have a small garden for herbs and seasonal tomatoes, shop for groceries for the rest and are entertained as much as sated by our choices. Which is what you are saying, no?

Or, as Mrs. Watson used to say, "It takes all types to make a web."

Its nice to a well written work that so in depth tells about the hard work and dedication of WebDesktop makers.

I would, by this like to invite you to take "ORCA - Beta #1" for a Test drive.

With kind regards
Leon Bollerup
CEO, Team ORCA
www.orcadesktop.com

The web experience will get better and Vista will likely bring a rush of nice services available that are quietly harboring on the background waiting for the release of the new OS.

Can Microsoft place in more locks into web development with Vista than it already has with Internet Explorer? Time will tell.

http://www.download.com/3000-20-10589545.html?part=undefined&subj=dl&tag=button