Comments on: Bet on the Browser, Not the Desktop http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop a blog about the connected age Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:54:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: tech decentral » Polytheistic Platforms http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-669 tech decentral » Polytheistic Platforms Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:24:26 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-669 [...] When I first confronted Apollo, I wanted to categorize it in ways I already understood: browser or desktop. And since I’m a confessed browser bigot, I didn’t like it. It seemed too much like starting at the desktop and mixing in a little web, leaving the browser entirely out of it. What might we lose without the browser? Zero install access to a whole range of applications and information, browser navigation capabilities like back and forward and search, data storage out in the cloud, potential for information integration, and browser tabs. [...] […] When I first confronted Apollo, I wanted to categorize it in ways I already understood: browser or desktop. And since I’m a confessed browser bigot, I didn’t like it. It seemed too much like starting at the desktop and mixing in a little web, leaving the browser entirely out of it. What might we lose without the browser? Zero install access to a whole range of applications and information, browser navigation capabilities like back and forward and search, data storage out in the cloud, potential for information integration, and browser tabs. […]

]]> By: Pragmatic Dictator » Blog Archive » Browser as Platform http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-668 Pragmatic Dictator » Blog Archive » Browser as Platform Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:13:02 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-668 [...] Observations on the long running “browser as a platform” debate. [...] […] Observations on the long running “browser as a platform” debate. […]

]]> By: James Governor’s Monkchips » If you aren’t reading Anne Zelenka you’re missing out http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-667 James Governor’s Monkchips » If you aren’t reading Anne Zelenka you’re missing out Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:38:55 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-667 [...] I believe that browser-based apps are the way forward. They remove so much friction from computing. And even more important, they put the emphasis on information and data and navigability rather than on the application itself. Google Reader is a good example: the interface packs tons of information about unread items into your browser window. Then it gives you keyboard access to move through those items quickly. At any time, you can move externally to seemingly infinite sources of information via the links in the articles. [...] […] I believe that browser-based apps are the way forward. They remove so much friction from computing. And even more important, they put the emphasis on information and data and navigability rather than on the application itself. Google Reader is a good example: the interface packs tons of information about unread items into your browser window. Then it gives you keyboard access to move through those items quickly. At any time, you can move externally to seemingly infinite sources of information via the links in the articles. […]

]]> By: tech decentral » Integrating Desktop and Web Apps with an Office Suite (Or, OLE 2.0) http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-666 tech decentral » Integrating Desktop and Web Apps with an Office Suite (Or, OLE 2.0) Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:15:55 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-666 [...] I believe that browser-based apps are the way forward. They remove so much friction from computing. And even more important, they put the emphasis on information and data and navigability rather than on the application itself. Google Reader is a good example: the interface packs tons of information about unread items into your browser window. Then it gives you keyboard access to move through those items quickly. [...] […] I believe that browser-based apps are the way forward. They remove so much friction from computing. And even more important, they put the emphasis on information and data and navigability rather than on the application itself. Google Reader is a good example: the interface packs tons of information about unread items into your browser window. Then it gives you keyboard access to move through those items quickly. […]

]]> By: Anne http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-665 Anne Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:55:20 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-665 David, I hope you're right, as we need better ways of integrating our desktop experience with the web. I thought Apache Derby was just downloaded as Java jar files, which is a bit more straightforward than getting an extra player plus downloaded application files. No question that Flash brings some important capabilities to the browser--I will check out Scrybe too. David, I hope you’re right, as we need better ways of integrating our desktop experience with the web. I thought Apache Derby was just downloaded as Java jar files, which is a bit more straightforward than getting an extra player plus downloaded application files. No question that Flash brings some important capabilities to the browser–I will check out Scrybe too.

]]> By: David http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-664 David Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:12:25 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-664 Hi Anne, I not try to convince you further now--I think Apollo is closer to the open web app paradigm than to the historical desktop paradigm, but lets reconnect on this again in a bit when the Apollo developer release is out and see what you think then. BTW, the Zimbra approach does require a local install as well (Apache Derby). I'm biased to the more seamless approach is that taken by iScrybe (http://iscrybe.com/main/index.php) leveraging the (almost 100%) already installed Flash Player :). -David Hi Anne,

I not try to convince you further now–I think Apollo is closer to the open web app paradigm than to the historical desktop paradigm, but lets reconnect on this again in a bit when the Apollo developer release is out and see what you think then.

BTW, the Zimbra approach does require a local install as well (Apache Derby). I’m biased to the more seamless approach is that taken by iScrybe (http://iscrybe.com/main/index.php) leveraging the (almost 100%) already installed Flash Player :).

-David

]]> By: Anne http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-663 Anne Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:33:17 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-663 David, thanks for the detailed reply. I agree that what we want to see sounds very much the same: a unification of the best of browser and desktop apps. In many respects, Apollo seems like something that approximates that. However, the direction of how Apollo gets there makes me concerned. It seems to be going against the broader currents happening in software: 1. compared to browser apps, it adds more friction to the process of installing and using an application, by requiring the presence of a player and because Apollo apps won't transparently install and upgrade themselves (at least according to the session I attended... they described installations that would look like desktop app installs). Browser applications, by contrast, do not need to be installed and usually do not need any additional software on the desktop other than the browser itself. Upgrades happen transparently too. 2. Apollo moves away from the software as a service paradigm back towards the local desktop app paradigm when all around we see how much easier it is for people and companies to deal with SaaS. 3. it moves towards more proprietary and less open--even though it uses accepted and mostly open standards for content, it packages them up in a non-open way. 4. it puts more of our software and data on our local machine at the same time that people are wanting to use many different devices (mobile phone, PDAs, multiple computers, media centers) for application usage and data access. We both agree that the desktop and browser experiences need to be bridged. But I think that there are right and wrong ways to get there. The right way, in my mind, is to swim with the current of the technology industry, not against it. Two examples of companies swimming with the current rather than against: Zimbra's announcement of offline access for their collaboration suite and Parakey's moving the desktop closer to the browser/web. My main concern is not this idea of "forking the web" but rather that the way Apollo addresses the browser-desktop gap is backwards looking not forwards. The problem with that is it may work in the short and medium term (for how long, who knows, could be many years). However, long run trends will make what Apollo accomplishes obsolete when browsers start offering almost everything that Apollo does, more openly and without introducing new friction into computing. David, thanks for the detailed reply. I agree that what we want to see sounds very much the same: a unification of the best of browser and desktop apps. In many respects, Apollo seems like something that approximates that.

However, the direction of how Apollo gets there makes me concerned. It seems to be going against the broader currents happening in software:

1. compared to browser apps, it adds more friction to the process of installing and using an application, by requiring the presence of a player and because Apollo apps won’t transparently install and upgrade themselves (at least according to the session I attended… they described installations that would look like desktop app installs). Browser applications, by contrast, do not need to be installed and usually do not need any additional software on the desktop other than the browser itself. Upgrades happen transparently too.

2. Apollo moves away from the software as a service paradigm back towards the local desktop app paradigm when all around we see how much easier it is for people and companies to deal with SaaS.

3. it moves towards more proprietary and less open–even though it uses accepted and mostly open standards for content, it packages them up in a non-open way.

4. it puts more of our software and data on our local machine at the same time that people are wanting to use many different devices (mobile phone, PDAs, multiple computers, media centers) for application usage and data access.

We both agree that the desktop and browser experiences need to be bridged. But I think that there are right and wrong ways to get there. The right way, in my mind, is to swim with the current of the technology industry, not against it.

Two examples of companies swimming with the current rather than against: Zimbra’s announcement of offline access for their collaboration suite and Parakey’s moving the desktop closer to the browser/web.

My main concern is not this idea of “forking the web” but rather that the way Apollo addresses the browser-desktop gap is backwards looking not forwards. The problem with that is it may work in the short and medium term (for how long, who knows, could be many years). However, long run trends will make what Apollo accomplishes obsolete when browsers start offering almost everything that Apollo does, more openly and without introducing new friction into computing.

]]> By: David http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-662 David Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:32:30 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-662 Hi Anne, Read your response to my comment and I think we are actually on the same page, but suffering from an absence of a common vocabulary to describe the next generation of applications. You don't want to see the pendulum swing backward from the web app to the desktop app. Neither do I. I don't think of Apollo as representing the world of the "desktop app" as we knew it, but rather a "web app" that can have many of the qualities we miss from era of desktop apps. It is still web deployed (no need to manage the install of .exes or updates) and built with web technologies (de jure and de facto standards) and in fact, your description here of where the world of web apps needs to evolve to is pretty much what I think we are doing: "There Hi Anne,

Read your response to my comment and I think we are actually on the same page, but suffering from an absence of a common vocabulary to describe the next generation of applications. You don’t want to see the pendulum swing backward from the web app to the desktop app. Neither do I. I don’t think of Apollo as representing the world of the “desktop app” as we knew it, but rather a “web app” that can have many of the qualities we miss from era of desktop apps. It is still web deployed (no need to manage the install of .exes or updates) and built with web technologies (de jure and de facto standards) and in fact, your description here of where the world of web apps needs to evolve to is pretty much what I think we are doing:

“There

]]> By: Anne http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-661 Anne Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:28:10 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-661 Vanessa, that's interesting that you couldn't maximize a remote session on the web version. There must be a way to take over the screen with a web app, because I was using Web Ex for a meeting yesterday and the meeting organizer was able to take over our desktops completely by some mechanism. Not sure what was going on or how Web Ex works. You may be right, about a no desktop world. There are so many things that can't yet be replaced by a browser app: serious document publishing, high-end graphics, software development. I could very well be wrong. But I love the ease of getting and managing apps via my browser. In contrast, dealing with desktop apps is such a pain. Vanessa, that’s interesting that you couldn’t maximize a remote session on the web version. There must be a way to take over the screen with a web app, because I was using Web Ex for a meeting yesterday and the meeting organizer was able to take over our desktops completely by some mechanism. Not sure what was going on or how Web Ex works.

You may be right, about a no desktop world. There are so many things that can’t yet be replaced by a browser app: serious document publishing, high-end graphics, software development. I could very well be wrong. But I love the ease of getting and managing apps via my browser. In contrast, dealing with desktop apps is such a pain.

]]> By: Vanessa L Williams http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-660 Vanessa L Williams Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:59:15 +0000 http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/11/bet-on-the-browser-not-the-desktop#comment-660 Virtual Server Admin has a web-based remote control feature. I thought it was kinda cool when I first started using it, but then it seemed like a pain. You can't maximize your remote session. Now I use Remote Desktops on a 19 in monitor. I have ample display space for my remote desktops plus I can easily click from one remote desktop to another using the navigation list on the left. I admit that I have some desktop needs that are a little different. I have to admit too that I have a hard time fathoming a no desktop app world. It's a metaphor that I'm accustomed to. It's probably the same thing that happened when dumb terminals were replaced with PCs. Many workers were overwhelmed by the transition because it was so different. I certainly don't want to be in that boat! Virtual Server Admin has a web-based remote control feature. I thought it was kinda cool when I first started using it, but then it seemed like a pain. You can’t maximize your remote session. Now I use Remote Desktops on a 19 in monitor. I have ample display space for my remote desktops plus I can easily click from one remote desktop to another using the navigation list on the left.

I admit that I have some desktop needs that are a little different. I have to admit too that I have a hard time fathoming a no desktop app world. It’s a metaphor that I’m accustomed to. It’s probably the same thing that happened when dumb terminals were replaced with PCs. Many workers were overwhelmed by the transition because it was so different. I certainly don’t want to be in that boat!

]]>