4 ms·

Google Official Rebuts Microsoft's Cloud Critiques

15 points by msredmond 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago
I think it's definitely a myth that you can get a richer client-side experience with thick-client software than you can with Web-based software. If you asked me that same question four or five years ago, I'd say you're absolutely correct. If you ask me that question now, I'd point to a variety of the applications that are out there that are built in HTML5 and have tremendously rich client-side experiences. The benefit beyond the tremendously rich client-side experience is you don't have to download anything. Is this true? For really rich client apps don't you have to download substantial amounts of Javascript/CSS/HTML? Once you factor out the respective runtimes (browser/CRT/JVM/CLR), what is the size delta for comparable applications? IL tends to be denser than code. But HTML/CSS push a lot more to the runtime than most code/runtime combos do (Silverlight and Flash probably being the two big exceptions). I guess my uber question is are we really moving to a thin client world, or are we moving to a world with a really huge runtime, data in the cloud, and non-trivially sized apps that still get downloaded?
- othermaciej 16y ago
  There's another, in my opinion more obvious, problem with his statement. The rise of native apps and the app store model for mobile devices is new since four or five years ago. It reverses the trend of more and more client software moving the the Web. And native apps in practice deliver richer experiences for touch-based mobile devices than most HTML5 Web Apps. It seems weird to me to completely ignore one of the biggest changes in client-side software development over the past 4 or 5 years.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    The argument isn't meant to be objective - it's a marketing position intended to support a future where Google has the strongest foothold. Generally that means playing down or ignoring the areas where competitors have made advances.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Yes, thanks for that obvious problem. The expected retort then should be, "All that Render Script stuff we saw for HoneyComb is going to get cut right? HTML5 is all you need?"
- endtime 16y ago
  Well, I sure wouldn't want to play Starcraft 2 in a browser, so I think you're right to question that statement.
rbarooah 16y ago
Isn't 'not having to download anything' becoming a bit meaningless now? Rich web apps do download plenty, and signing up on a web form isn't any simpler than a couple of clicks to download from an app store. The fact that Google thinks the Chrome app store is worthwhile only emphasizes this. I think that in this case, ease of use arguments are pretty arbitrary - the key question is who manages the data and who has access to it, and to me that seems to depend on the particular application. I see absolutely no reason other than the increased control given to Google that we shouldn't have both types of application so we can make these choices for ourselves.

15 points by msredmond 16y ago

I think it's definitely a myth that you can get a richer client-side experience with thick-client software than you can with Web-based software. If you asked me that same question four or five years ago, I'd say you're absolutely correct. If you ask me that question now, I'd point to a variety of the applications that are out there that are built in HTML5 and have tremendously rich client-side experiences. The benefit beyond the tremendously rich client-side experience is you don't have to download anything. Is this true? For really rich client apps don't you have to download substantial amounts of Javascript/CSS/HTML? Once you factor out the respective runtimes (browser/CRT/JVM/CLR), what is the size delta for comparable applications? IL tends to be denser than code. But HTML/CSS push a lot more to the runtime than most code/runtime combos do (Silverlight and Flash probably being the two big exceptions). I guess my uber question is are we really moving to a thin client world, or are we moving to a world with a really huge runtime, data in the cloud, and non-trivially sized apps that still get downloaded?

othermaciej 16y ago
There's another, in my opinion more obvious, problem with his statement. The rise of native apps and the app store model for mobile devices is new since four or five years ago. It reverses the trend of more and more client software moving the the Web. And native apps in practice deliver richer experiences for touch-based mobile devices than most HTML5 Web Apps. It seems weird to me to completely ignore one of the biggest changes in client-side software development over the past 4 or 5 years.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  The argument isn't meant to be objective - it's a marketing position intended to support a future where Google has the strongest foothold. Generally that means playing down or ignoring the areas where competitors have made advances.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Yes, thanks for that obvious problem. The expected retort then should be, "All that Render Script stuff we saw for HoneyComb is going to get cut right? HTML5 is all you need?"
endtime 16y ago
Well, I sure wouldn't want to play Starcraft 2 in a browser, so I think you're right to question that statement.

rbarooah 16y ago

Isn't 'not having to download anything' becoming a bit meaningless now? Rich web apps do download plenty, and signing up on a web form isn't any simpler than a couple of clicks to download from an app store. The fact that Google thinks the Chrome app store is worthwhile only emphasizes this. I think that in this case, ease of use arguments are pretty arbitrary - the key question is who manages the data and who has access to it, and to me that seems to depend on the particular application. I see absolutely no reason other than the increased control given to Google that we shouldn't have both types of application so we can make these choices for ourselves.