Webified Desktop Apps vs Browser-based Apps
Written by Ebrahim Ezzy and edited by Richard MacManus. Ebrahim runs a search engine called Qube - which is a webified desktop app. Richard's Note: In some ways Ebrahim's conclusions in this article contradict my own views, but I think that makes it even more appropriate for Read/WriteWeb to publish. I'm looking forward to a robust discussion by readers in the comments section!
More and more applications these days are being webified - meaning "made to operate on the Web using a browser or made to function in a similar manner." This is because the Internet is capable of significantly augmenting human interaction, with its decentralized system of ubiquitous data accessibility.
WebOS, the remote desktop
We've already seen a wealth of desktop-replicated web applications in the web 2.0 space - office suites, calenders, task management. A webtop (derived from 'desktop') pushes that replication to its limit. Also known as a WebOS, it is basically a virtual desktop on the web. It is a simple, less bloated, less featured and remotely accessible operating environment that runs in a browser. It delivers a rich desktop-like experience, coupled with various built-in applications.
Popularized (in the Web 2.0 era) by Goowy among others, these products typically feature wallpapers, windows, toolbars, folders, work & entertainment tools, abilities like drag and drop - and other pseudo-useful features that have been available on desktops forever.
The concept is expected to appeal those who require seamless connectivity, even on-the-go. Common uses include file-sharing, a communication tool for families and small workgroups, office tasks (private word documents, calendar and agenda), Entertainment (Games, Chat, Music), as an FTP alternative, etc. Richard has been writing about WebOS companies for a while on ZDNet - and his recent post about EyeOS shows how WebOS products are being used by people.
Startups in this space
Goowy provides email (2GB), messenger, calendar, address book, News/RSS manager, file sharing & storage (1GB), games, and widgets (which they call mini). Developed mostly in Flash, Goowy also offers hosted version with added functionalities, for businesses. [Ed: Ryan Stewart wrote a great overview of Goowy on Read/WriteWeb in March]
DesktopTwo (also available in Spanish) provides email, address book, file storage and sharing (1GB), IM, blog, music player and a website editor in a nicely organized user-interface. It requires Flash, Acrobat Reader, and popup windows to function correctly. It's a nice name (DesktopTwo = Desktop 2.0, I guess) and my personal favorite.
Glide Effortless is a web-suite that handles media files - documents, photos, audio, and video - and also provides a handy word processor and calendar.
XIN is still in beta, but is evolving into a full-featured WebOS. In Richard's original review of XIN, he noted that XIN aims to be an entirely Web-based OS and as such is a full development platform.
YouOS has perhaps the most recognition of all the WebOS products - and high ideals too. The YouOS developers describe their product as "a liberation of software from hardware". According to Richard's article, YouOS wants the OS to be no longer a user's primary concern - it's your data and your apps that you only need to concern yourself with.
EyeOS (Open-Source) was developed in Spain and currently boasts 53,500 users in the main public server. In addition there are around 400 active servers installed by users. More in Richard's review.
Great Idea, Questionable Value
The Internet has changed how we access and use information. With a computer and a high-speed connection, no matter where you are, your world travels with you. Of course, while that might sound eminently desirable - the reality is sometimes not as romantic.
WebOS is a great idea, but in my opinion it has questionable value. It can be fun, exciting, entertaining and even convenient for some - but being as efficient, flexible and productive as a desktop is practically impossible. The majority of these applications are almost essentially superfluous, emphasizing novelty over substance.
Downsides of a WebOS
- Works at the mercy of the network and the server load.
- While the many enabling capabilities of network-based storage architectures are of substantial value - issues of authentication, access control, and security/privacy of the stored data remain. Are you going to let someone else handle your data? Would you trust a startup to protect your critical data? [Ed: for an interesting side argument, see this discussion of IBM's SoulPad from a year ago]
- The privacy, control, reliability and performance issues prevent the WebOS from being an alternative to the ever-more-affordable and easy-to-use desktop.
- WebOS requires a fast and reliable (if not flawless) connection to work correctly.
- Inability to operate peripheral devices.
- Web applications rely on open source infrastructure and an array of technologies and formats - and these are constantly changing, often with no regard for being backwards compatible.
As Fred Oliveira of WeBreakStuff nicely put it:
"...after service outsourcing and personal outsourcing, we’re seeing a new age of web-service outsourcing. One with no regulations - only expectations and hopes. Everything is based on trust, and trust sometimes fails.
And the problem here is that even with web-services as a liability, there’s no fallback mechanism, no alternative route, and no “competitor service” that can be plugged into an app in the timely manner like web 2.0 applications require.
This proves that purely mash-up based applications have small foundations, and like a house with no foundations, they may fail to resist, should the unexpected happen."
(bold emphasis mine)
I should note that without a leap of faith, no idea or innovation can get off the ground. However, several other factors make web applications like WebOS less secure, less productive and unreliable.
Improve the desktop instead
I rely on various web applications to create documents, presentations, spreadsheets; share images, videos, data; manage and organize tasks, projects and life. But I still believe the future of computing isn't entirely web-based. It's necessary to have the desktop as the pivotal point, because the power of the desktop is important for a rich user experience - and will be, for a very long time to come.
What we require then are smart, webified, internet deployable desktop applications - that can reliably store data, serve it robustly, and interact with both remote and local databases. This connected model will ensure that applications will function in both online and offline states - for a seamless, uninterrupted experience.
Companies that are vying to be the prime desktop development platform include Microsoft, Adobe and (increasingly) Google. Ryan Stewart has a good post summarizing the main desktop platforms. See also Techworld.com on Windows Vista and virtualisation.
Webified Desktop Applications
There are many examples of desktop applications that benefit from the connectivity and mobility of web-based data:
- Windows Live Writer provides a powerful replacement for web-based blogging.
- Word 2007 will also allow blogging from Open API.
- Utilizing the power of desktop and a remotely hosted environment, SecondLife provides a unique type of gameplay that would be impossible on the desktop alone.
- The NYTimes Reader "enhances the on-screen reading experience" by providing functionalities in a desktop application that weren't achievable through a web-based interface (see also the R/WW review).
- iTunes integrates with its online music store and generates an impressive revenue stream.
- Using Excel 2007, a spreadsheet author will be able to save their spreadsheet to a SharePoint (Microsoft's web-based collaboration tool) document library and give other users browser-based access to the server-calculated version of that spreadsheet.
Other examples include Webaroo (offline search), PicasaWeb (Desktop Photo organizer and uploader), Omnidrive (data storage), Omniscope (data filtering and manipulation), Qube (browserless, desktop search), TouchStone (information management - private alpha) etc.
As the Web becomes increasingly interconnected and applications continue to blur the distinction between the desktop and web, we should expect to see more applications that allow Web/desktop synchronization. This will happen due to the increasing development of web services that enable apps to work equally well across web and desktop clients.
Summary
I will continue to use WebOS and other web-based productivity applications, just to appease the Web 2.0 spirit within me. But the fact remains that Webified (or "connected") desktop applications are noticeably superior, offering almost all the benefits of web applications without any limitations. Indeed, I think the two environments are not even directly comparable.
However, in the end desktop and web are just small outposts in a much larger world of information creation, collaboration, distribution, management, and presentation. What ultimately matters is productivity, scalability and speed.
If (and it's a big 'if') the web will render the desktop obsolete someday, then I'll be more inclined to accept the new norm of web apps and services.
UPDATE: We've published a poll, for you to tell us which type of app you prefer - desktop or browser-based.
Share13 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2743
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Great write-up. I wrote a post (yesterday) on web-based applications limitations and how hybrid ones will rule the internet.
If you're curious, you can read it at
http://www.fewagainstmany.com/web/web-based-or-not/
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.
Nice article, Ebrahim. I also wrote on this topic a few months back and my conclusion was similar. http://www.web2journal.com/read/224934.htm
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
I'm for browser based apps, except web based operating systems. Writely is a very good example of what web based applications can do. You never lose data, you can access it everywhere. Connectivitity should not be seen as a drawback because the world is getting more and more connected everyday.
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.
By the way; thanx Ebrahim for the article, and congrats Richard for widening the horizons of your blog with opposite views to you.
Good article. only that http://eyeOS.info has now 63,700 users .... growing at almost 400 new users a day ....
I'd suggest that my application TiddlyWiki is also relevant to this discussion (see http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ and also http://www.tiddlyspot.com/). It's a personal wiki that's implemented as a self-contained HTML page. This means that it has the best of the web by running on almost any browser and platform, but it also has the best of desktop applications, by being completely independent of your network connection and the vagaries of a hosting provider. And TiddlyWiki is open source and free, with a very busy community of developers around it.
Excellent write-up again, Ebrahim.
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
I jumped onto the "Web 2.0" bandwagon early on because for me, it solved a big problem, that is, keeping multiple computers synced.
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.
I currently use a mix of web based and desktop based apps.
This is however changing towards more web based services over time.
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
Nice writeup. I find that a combination of a finely tuned OS (ala winxp with all the great del.icio.us xp tuning hacks) along with a finely tuned Firefox browser + extensions can deliver the best of both worlds.
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
I totally agree with you. I wrote about this very subject last month: http://intelligantt.blogspot.com/2006/08/web-applications-or-desktop.html
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!
It just won't be feasible for software developers to continue to create desktop applications, especially when these applications will need to also run on all sorts of mobile devices. Very few companies will be able to recreate the functionality of the major web browsers. If connectivity is an issue or there is a need to store your data locally then simply ship a web application server with the OS. Your OS can then be a wiki running on localhost with your applications being widgets either hosted locally, on your intranet, on the internet. The "rich user experience" will be trumped by the "integrated user experience" sooner than you think.
Thanks everyone for your nice comments.
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
isnt this qube application just whenu trying to come out with the same spyware, but try to slide it under the radar?
Hi Dan,
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
I suppose WebOS could be usefull in form of outsourcing for very small companies, who do not want to spend on IT infrastrature. If have 3 people venture, I would definitely consider such an option.
Dan (#14), that's a baseless accusation to make.
Good article. Actually, we've developed software similar with those Web-OS: Purefect (will be released as an Open Source Software).
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.
Sorry for the typo (post #18):
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.
Well, folks, the history of the web actually sheds some
light on this discussion. The issue of WebOS vs Hybrid
really resides in the nature of the application and
the skill level of its users.
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
The french blogger, Didier Durand talk about "linternux": Linux 2.0 with web 2.0 as a plateform
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
#9 Al: This utilisation of Web with the wrong metaphor is such a good point.
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.
You forgot this downside: web applications use more fossil fuels than desktop applications. See my post from a couple days ago.
I honestly think that you're missing the boat on this one. 'Webified' vs. 'Browser' is a comparison that will be dead in the near future as Operating Systems become more 'browser-like' and browsers become more 'application-like'. We're already seeing this conversion occurring with the so-called "Web 2.0" generation of applications. However, browsers will work harder and harder to make their products more capabile of building out a User Interface. As well, Microsoft is already working on SSE, which is an asynchronous communication method like RSS. The result will be local and remote data store synchronization in real-time.
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
Ebrahim,
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
Hi Gibu,
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 can see the logic of the argument but unfortunately I wonder if you're taking the classic 'either/or' position without necessarily recognising that the problems you identify will be overcome.
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!
The fact that this topic is getting discussed is great. I think from the comments and views that I've read, that one permutation is missing, and that is the creation of an additional layer above the desktop that web applications can make use of to turn themselves into desktop applications. A key part of this idea is that this layer should be standard.
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:
Best regards,
Mark
Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port
http://skimstone.x-port.net/
Thanks Ebrahim. I will email you the link to the presentation.
Gibu
Thanks for mentioning Touchstone Ebrahim.
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
Bubbles is a windows program that gives web-application the look, feel and usability of desktop applications.
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.
O my god. I reaaallllly like goowy. Even though it's using flash, not the W3C things I'd expect, it was pretty impressive in terms of emulating an OS's behaviours. The product is very well polished. However, the web OS thing is still in its infant stage, and no-body is quite clear about its future. Maybe I will just see how it turns out to be in the future. Essentially, the access-from-anywhere functionality, with no doubt, is their biggest advantage at this point.
Ebrahim inspired me to think about Web 2.0 all this past weekend. Thanks alot, Ebrahim :)
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.
Excellent post and great discussion thread.
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).
Some words on the downsides.
* 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.
Ezzy - thanks for the link to dandelife.com in your article. Very subtle. Appreciate the mention.
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."
Dear Richard
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
‰∏?Â∫îËØ•ÊòØËøôʆ∑ÁöÑÂ?ßÔºü@_@~~
The web is the driving force and will remain so. What will change is how we use the web (services) through our operating system of choice. Currently we get an run the "web 2.0" services via a browser. The rise of widgets have cut the browser out of the middle and are offering a part of the great package involved in web deployment through a unified set of developer tools.
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.
It's now possible to start signing up for development of (server+client) apps for the XIN desktop.
You keep the rights to the app yourself, and you are allowed to make money through ads and/or buying/selling, and/or other legal means.
We enrichen our service with more apps for the users of the XIN desktop, and you gain exposure and possibly cash.
Creating the apps are easy and intuitive, and once you've signed up, we will email you and ask you wether you need additional serverside components for you app to run.
Unlike all the other similar solutions, XIN offers full serverside support/access for your app.
- XIN is layered ontop of ASP classic, and anything asp is basically valid, as long as it's XIN formatted.
I've tried to store 100 GB of my files, music and videos at an online storage provide like Flipdrive and Mediamax. Does it really work during day-to-day usuage? How much does it cost? Can it replace your local harddrive(s)? Check out my report at my blog if you're interested.
hey guys, i had recently used Parvail PC Controller as an excellent alternative to Google Desktop - with plenty more features then Google Desktop - try that - you can find it at Download.com here -
http://www.download.com/3000-20-10589545.html?part=undefined&subj=dl&tag=button
I think the future is a vm based on xen or vmware
that lives on a flashmemory stick. By using the
stick you get freedom. By using the vm you get
security and the path to freedom of location.
Puppy linux would be a good base. I think security
is the 800LB gorrilla in this mix. Because windows
isnt going anywhere to me this is the future.