Poll: Whose vision of web app deployment do you like the best?
This week's poll is based on our current feature post, Understanding Apollo. In that post, I attempted to provide an overview of Apollo for non-developers. At the end, I looked at the high level of how the big Internet companies are deploying web apps nowadays. Here's what I wrote:
It is a fiercely competitive market, with Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Google and others all active - and each has a differing vision for web app deployment. Google is still very much focused inside the browser, whereas Adobe and Microsoft have made divergent moves to go outside the browser (but both with one foot still planted firmly in the browser). Let's not forget that Mozilla and the other browsers are enhancing their products at a furious rate. It's a key point in the evolution of web apps - so who do you think has the inside running at this stage?
I'd like to pose that question as a poll. I've noted down the main players in this market - along with (probably over-simplified) summaries of their web app deployment strategies.
Note that I included Mozilla, even though it's not really in the same space as the other commercial companies. But as Chris Messina put it last week, Mozilla has the potential to be a significant platform for web app dev and deployment.
So let us know what you think, by participating in the poll below.
3 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2184
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I have to go with Microsoft on this one, they have always been a platform company and really know how to help developers make great apps. WinFX on the desktop along with .NET in the browser? Enough said.
If Mozilla takes initiative and provides a platform instead of a product, then I definitely agree. If not... I think Adobe has this one.
Why did I say "I definitely agree"? I meant to say that I definitely think Mozilla would win the war.
Poor Sun... they can't win a vote.
I'm going with Adobe, but that could be because I am most familiar with their offerings.
its a bit from each...
First, its great to see applications deployed on the desktop and used offline like Apollo does, but maybe i needed the browser to do this job (think of it like I'm using the application online if i like it i can deploy it, then while using it online i can just close the browser and it is still is appearing (just like Trillian Astra), and i can maximize it, then i can close the connection as well) :)
Second, i think the idea of microformats is just great... but why doesn't they expand the types of micro formats supported in FireFox 3.0? why not the feeds, tags...etc?
Third, the great thing about silverlight is that it is fast... so maybe we would like to see applications built in silverlight rather than flash, add to this the DotNet.
but although i said the browser should do this... there is still is a problem, the problem is that browsers are like ducks they don't want to interact with each other, they are ready to beat each other and not to shake hands... this is resulting from the competition between Microsoft and Google... OK, what i'm meaning really? if the browser is support microformats and be an information broker between different web applications, then why don't FireFox and Internet Explorer exchange those microformats? or does they need a broker? (this point is based on my assumption that IE8 will head up to the same point FireFox is doing)
hm, in my opinion Google style and MS style are much related! Actually I cant separate MS programing from ajax, in my code they come all together(maps controls etc)
Mozilla does have a platform. Most of it's been around for years. It's recently (last 12 months) been solidified as a distributable "runtime" known as XULRunner [1].
XULRunner allows you to write client side, distributable applications built using JavaScript, XUL (XML User Interface Lanaguage), HTML, and soon Python and SQLite.
If Mozilla pushes this, as Chris (above) said they should, then I think they could give Adobe a run for their money.
[1] http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
XUL app hall of fame:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner_Hall_of_Fame
ActiveState's Komodo's written in XUL:
http://www.activestate.com/products/komodo_ide/
wtf sun? They really need to give up on the idea of java and the interweb, it's just embaressing. They product was crap 5 years ago and now its uber-mega crap with the strength of the current crop of products. JavaFX, alternative to AJAX? wtf ajax ain't exactly complex