In today's world, you're never too far from an internet connection. In developed countries, broadband access is available in more places than ever, and even poorer countries have internet cafes sprouting up left and right. Modern web workers and business travelers even take extra precautions to maintain always-on connectivity - packing air cards in their laptop bags or buying laptops that already have built-in EVDO access.
Despite the broad availability of internet access, it's the dead spots that have been pushing forward the need for offline access to web apps. For how can a web office suite like Google Docs or Zoho compete with desktop software if they become unusable when the internet connection disappears?
In the short term, products like Google Gears, a browser plug-in that takes web apps offline, are a necessary evil, bridging the gap between desktop and web -nothing more than a transitional piece in the desktop to cloud computing move.
The offline component of Docs is clearly designed to make the move from desktop suites to web apps more comfortable and less off-putting for those accustomed to the stable, always available nature of their trusty desktop programs.
However, by focusing on an offline web, one has to wonder if this is really progress: if we wanted an offline word processor, well...don't we already have several of those available already? Shouldn't a product like Google Docs be more focused on what makes them unique in the office suite space instead?
Besides, going offline isn't easy - which is why you don't see many other web 2.0 developers taking their web-based startup to the desktop world. Additionally, offline apps aren't nearly as good as their online selves: As Harry McCracken wrote on a Sunday night blog post on PC World, "No current Gears-enabled app is anything like its full-blooded self in offline form--and since most of them are stripped-down compared to traditional desktop software even in their online versions, that means the offline ones are barebones at best."
It's true. When you go offline with Google Docs, you're missing out on one of the features that makes their suite worthwhile - real-time collaboration.
For obvious reasons, SaaS apps, like Google Docs, have trouble in a disconnected world. And while this problem might be a deal-breaker for some people now, it won't always be the case. Before too long, being offline will be the exception - even airplanes have started offering internet access - not the rule. And who knows what Verizon's spectrum win will bring a few years down the road?
So, yes, offline access is important now, but not as important as a few years ago, and certainly less important with each passing day.
Hopefully, companies like Google and Adobe and others focusing on providing offline tools, won't get too sidetracked in their need to compete with the desktop world since they would only be perfecting what will soon become an infrequently used feature.
Instead, the focus for these tools should be on the features that only an internet-connected program can offer, things like real-time collaboration or Docs' GoogleLookUp feature. These will be the driving forces to prompt mainstream use of online suites, not the fact that they work sans internet.
Maybe Google Gears isn't backward progress exactly, at least not today, but it's important for these web companies to keep their priorities straight: offer users amazing features they can't get in an offline program, then worry about fighting for desktop space.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I would love real offline access to a number of apps. Google Reader, for example. I find that while access is plentiful it definitely isn't everywhere and that chance of non-access makes a big difference. The knowledge that you will have access to something for sure is significantly more comforting than the hope that you'll probably have access to it and it makes a big difference in planning.
Gears, though, is the wrong solution. Having to take yourself into offline mode is not really that much better than the alternative. If you forget you're out of luck? If you planned on having access but realize you don't. For mobile devices like phones, it's definitely a non-starter. I need to remember to put things into offline mode when going into the subway?
I'd love broadband everywhere, but until I do, I wouldn't mind some decent offline coverage. :)
Posted by: felix | April 7, 2008 11:32 AMSarah - great post but I can't help but disagree with you. As mentioned previously I live on a lump of rock down in the South Pacific (same rock that the RWW editor comes from in fact). Where I live connectivity really is an issue - here and now. I use google apps and reader exhaustively but I absolutely need some offline functionality. Google and Zoho have (quite rightly) identified that their market are wider than just silicon valley, extending to locations with poor connectivity and frequent outages - given this there is no option other than rolling out offline functionality. Well actually there is one other options, which is pushing the ubiquitous connectivity barrow - Google is obviously trying to do this as hard as they can - but even Google realises that they need to provide functionality for all.
Bear in mind that offline Google docs isn't anything about providing a desktop ap as you (almost) infer. It's just about providing continuity for those times that outages occur.
Posted by: benkepesAmen.
I have increasingly wondered about the wisdom in pushing permanent offline access for online apps.
Wifi is already widely available and coverage seems to be growing steadily. If you must be connected 24/7, there is always internet service from your cell carrier.
Aside from random internet outages or long flights, I can't fathom many situations where I would even want offline access. In fact, I would guess that as airlines start providing reliable wifi access, the widespread clamor for offline access will disappear.
As an aside, I wholeheartedly agree with felix:
Something that provides seamless stop-gap offline functionality would be much more useful.
Posted by: Doug | April 7, 2008 12:23 PMI think offline access is an important component to pushing web apps to the mainstream. But I tend to think Adobe's approach of taking apps out of the browser and running them as full programs on the desktop makes more sense.
For people like us (the ones who read blogs like RWW) using web apps has become second nature. Storing data online makes sense, and we're connected to the Internet pretty much whenever we're awake. But for most people, I don't think that's how the world works.
For many mainstream users, I think the idea of storing your data in the cloud is kind of creepy (that's the word my girlfriend used the other day when I was explaining to her how things like Google Docs work). Giving those people access to the software in the traditional form of a desktop application will, in my opinion, help push them gently toward web applications. Get them hooked on Google Docs on the desktop, convince them of the convenience of having anywhere access to the app on the web, and then you might start seeing people really embrace web apps as they get used to the idea.
So, in my opinion, offline access is important as a means to an end. Web apps will have a much smoother road to mass mainstream adoption if offline/desktop versions are used as a bridge.
Posted by: Josh Catonehttp://diversity.net.nz/offline-access-important-or-not/2008/04/08/
Posted by: benkepesThe logic in offline access is flawed, the already serious security issues associated with webapps becomes even greater with stuff like Google gears.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | April 7, 2008 2:29 PMIt's also important to recognize that Adobe AIR isn't just about taking apps offline. Multi-window support, drag and drop, keyboard shortcuts, and access to the rich clipboard are all things that you take for granted in a desktop app are difficult or impossible to do in a browser. Browsers are designed for reading webpages - not hosting applications.
Posted by: Mitch | April 7, 2008 6:30 PMOffline integration is an ROI-positive initiative that lasts all but a whooping 5 years before it falls off our radar. Instead, app platform developers should be thinking about bring the richness and tight OS-integration of desktop applications online.
Posted by: Q dub | April 7, 2008 7:08 PMinstead of using google offline better to other office suit program because they have more capabilities as compare to Google docs
Posted by: ajay | April 7, 2008 8:52 PMi think Google also want to enter the desktop office application suit.
Gears can provide other benefits besides offline access to a full webapp. You can use it to "cache" your favourite JS toolkit that you don't change frequently on the client, and all your images and css files.
Think of the bandwith you would save. And if you need to update your css? No problem, just update the version string on your manifest.json file, and if you are using a ManagedStore, Gears will fetch the new version.
"Gears, though, is the wrong solution. Having to take yourself into offline mode is not really that much better than the alternative."
It would be possible (but not trivial) to use gears in reader without this limitation, so I don't see this as a problem of Google Gears.
Posted by: João Costa | April 8, 2008 2:34 AMI agree with both sides of this argument. There are definitely times when I'm very glad I have offline apps, and other times when I don't think I need an OS at all. If I had the option to boot to a browser, I'd be a-ok with that.
I have 2 computers at home, and the computer I use at work, and it frustrates me endlessly trying to keep them all in sync. Whenever I have to install the same app twice, I think of how far we still have to go before things are really connected.
Ideally, any device I used would connect to a central "desktop" where everything I needed saved/installed(games) was kept. I wonder if there's anything like this yet?
Posted by: sqrlking | April 8, 2008 10:55 AM