Watching a Business Model Die
Dare Obasanjo believes that disconnected desktop software is dead (as do I) - which is likely a painful reality for Microsoft - they make a ton of cash from Office right now. Dare refers to a number of announcements about online application suites, ending with Microsoft's "Office Live" - which he doesn't seem to think much of:
As you can see one of these four announcements is not like the others. Since it isn’t fair to pick on the stupid, I’ll let you figure out which company is jumping on a dying paradigm while the rest of the industry has already moved towards the next generation. The Web is no longer the future of computing, computing is now about the Web.
Forget the "rich user experience" offered by desktop UIs. People have moved on to the 80% solution that is the web UI, because the other advantages outweigh that loss of "richness".
Comments
poppycock
[Brad Fuller] October 2, 2007 13:36:31.865
I'm surprised at your comment.
If you mean "web UI" as a "web browser", I have to disagree with you. It's a lousy interface and it clearly is not 80% of the solution. Users just haven't been presented with appropriate interfaces that connect with the world yet - they take what they can get and what we've given them is pathetic. It's no secret that software disconnected from the web is changing. But, there are many "rich" apps that rarely need to be totally integrated with the web.
The dynabook idea of a rich personal computing environment connected to the vast media on the net is not here, but I trust will come. We just haven't seen it yet, although very doable today.
Not yet
[] October 2, 2007 13:45:00.680
You would need permanent connectivity to the Net to really get rid of desktop software. We are still far away from this, and sometimes I don't want to be connected, and I don't want a provider to be able to control whether I can work or not. You claim that "people have moved on to ... the web UI" - that's not what I see when I look around. Yes, people use web mailers, but still fetch their mail into a local mail program just in case the ISP pulls the plug. Entering confidential company data in a Web based Office suite? No way! Not being able to watch a movie or listen to music when I'm on a train ride, because it's only available by streaming? Nope.
There have been many announcements of "this or that technology is dead" which proved wrong. Think "Cobol". Or "Smalltalk". :-) I think that desktop software will be around for a while.
read more carefully
[Jason] October 2, 2007 13:56:55.422
The one not like the other is IBM, not Microsoft.
[Dave Cope] October 2, 2007 14:52:04.709
The majority of web apps I use suck. The origins of HTTP and the web had nothing to do with what we're doing with it now. Web apps are a mish mash of fudges and kludges. And no, trendy frameworks don't cut it. They are just (clever) sticking plasters. We need totally new protocols to deal with local/network apps.
It's IBM
[Mark Baker] October 2, 2007 16:12:58.965
I agree with Jason: IBM's the odd ball AFAICT.
80%?
[Mike Brazinski] October 2, 2007 18:14:06.943
What web app is 80% of a thick/rich/fat client app? Webmail? A basic mail client seems like one of the simplist apps yet but none of the web apps seem to seem to manage sorting easily and drag and drop is just not there. And, although Google Maps is nice, it's still not 80% of Google Earth. Forget about the raised terrain and the ability to change the angle of view. You can't rotate Google Maps. That sees like a core function to me.
If you're saying that an app needs to utilize the internet with easy distribution and perhaps integration to on-line documentation, I'll give you that. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet on desktop applications.
"People have moved on to ... the web UI" - which people?
[HKN] October 5, 2007 5:10:19.969
Most people I know judge that web apps for their daily work just suck. Typically they are *forced* by their employers to use web technology based tools. They agree to find theirself in in the 80/20% divide: 20% of their productivity left.