3 ms·

This is more a case of "old is still old", I think. We've been hearing about how web apps or browser-based apps will replace desktop apps for many years now, ye

This is more a case of "old is still old", I think. We've been hearing about how web apps or browser-based apps will replace desktop apps for many years now, yet it never happens. I can still remember all of the Java applet, ActiveX control and DHTML hype of the late 1990s. It died out when it was proven to be nonsense. Desktop apps continued to thrive. Then it built up again a few years later, during the middle of the last decade, when AJAX and jQuery became all the rage. These offerings were marginally better than what we saw in the DHTML era, but still lacking. The only traction they gained was at the very low end. Most serious users still preferred to use real desktop applications. Now it's a few years later, and there's been a lot of HTML5 hype. Yet the browser-based apps are still no closer to replacing desktop apps. Gmail, for instance, has been around for almost a decade, but a great many people much prefer a real mail client. We also haven't seen much traction when it comes to modern online office suites, and other web-based alternatives to more traditional desktop apps. Native desktop or mobile apps are going to be around for a long time. I question whether it is even possible for any browser-based app to compete. In order to do so effectively, it would be necessary to eliminate the browser itself, as it is the browser and its related technologies which provide the poor experience we get from many web apps. It just looks like a complete no-win situation for web apps, aside from perhaps at the very low end.

aidos 14y ago
I think things are still moving in the direction we expected. Java applets and ActiveX were horrible experiences, that's why they didn't survive, not because desktop apps are fundamentally better. And DHTML is just a different name for webpages that use Javascript - that was doing pretty well last time I checked. Google Docs and Gmail replaced traditional desktop apps for me a long time ago. Sure, not everyone has moved, and it will certainly be a long time before the enterprise sector throws out their desktop apps, but in the consumer space many people just use web based mail clients. According to year old Litmus stats [0] 31% of email was webmail (and how much of the outlook traffic is from office workers?). Xero have done an amazing job of pushing into a space dominated by and old desktop app (Sage). People are moving, slowly but surely. I know that desktop apps are not going to vanish soon but it's not fair to say that web apps haven't gained much traction. Any issues you're seeing in the experience at the moment will be smoothed out. There's mind boggling amounts of resource being poured into making web apps faster (V8 etc) and the emerging frameworks for rich interfaces (Angular etc) are going to enable a whole new breed of web app. [0] http://litmus.com/blog/email-client-market-share-stats-infographic-june-2012/email-client-market-share-june-2012 http://litmus.com/blog/email-client-market-share-stats-infog...
graue 14y ago
This is all anecdotes unless someone's done a survey, but in my experience very few people use a native app for email anymore. I do so, but can't think of a single other person I know who does. Almost everyone's on Gmail, and a lot of people only do IM (Gchat, Facebook Chat) in the browser, too. And there was never a native desktop app for Facebook, but that didn't prevent it from getting a billion users. Likewise, where's the native app for YouTube? We all used to download videos and then watch them in native video players. Not anymore. Maybe it's a matter of age — I suspect you might be a little older than me and the crowd I hang out with (mostly mid-20s). From my vantage point web apps have obviously already replaced many categories of native apps, and are on the way to replace more. It seems as if you are denying something that already happened.
- jcd748 14y ago
  I went from using a webapp exclusively for email, back to a traditional client. The reason was that the webapp didn't expose enough functionality, and I couldn't change the top-posting default value. Joining several email lists where bottom-posting was the norm, it made sense to adapt to that, and I ended up adopting Thunderbird. Prior to that, I hadn't used a "traditional" email client since pine and Pegasus Mail in the late 90s.
- Encosia 14y ago
  I think a lot of people who have only been exposed to web based email don't realize what they're missing in a good native client. I have several friends in that mid/late-20s age range that went to work in corporate jobs, used Outlook 2010 for the first time, and then asked me for help getting their personal Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail accounts working with Outlook because they like doing email there so much more once they learn to use it well. edit: BTW, I see your comment was downvoted while I was writing mine. I just wanted to say that I did not downvote yours; you make good points about Facebook and YouTube, to be sure.
  - purplelobster 14y ago
    Outlooks is so much worse than gmail in almost every way. The only good thing about it for work is integration with all the other MS applications. My experience with Outlook after many years of gmail has been nothing but frustrating, and I hear the same story everywhere.
_Dude_ 14y ago
"Now it's a few years later, and there's been a lot of HTML5 hype." Since there is no real choice of what language to use on client side nowadays it is easier to pretend and say that HTML and JS are awesome.

aidos 14y ago

I think things are still moving in the direction we expected. Java applets and ActiveX were horrible experiences, that's why they didn't survive, not because desktop apps are fundamentally better. And DHTML is just a different name for webpages that use Javascript - that was doing pretty well last time I checked. Google Docs and Gmail replaced traditional desktop apps for me a long time ago. Sure, not everyone has moved, and it will certainly be a long time before the enterprise sector throws out their desktop apps, but in the consumer space many people just use web based mail clients. According to year old Litmus stats [0] 31% of email was webmail (and how much of the outlook traffic is from office workers?). Xero have done an amazing job of pushing into a space dominated by and old desktop app (Sage). People are moving, slowly but surely. I know that desktop apps are not going to vanish soon but it's not fair to say that web apps haven't gained much traction. Any issues you're seeing in the experience at the moment will be smoothed out. There's mind boggling amounts of resource being poured into making web apps faster (V8 etc) and the emerging frameworks for rich interfaces (Angular etc) are going to enable a whole new breed of web app. [0] http://litmus.com/blog/email-client-market-share-stats-infographic-june-2012/email-client-market-share-june-2012 http://litmus.com/blog/email-client-market-share-stats-infog...

graue 14y ago

This is all anecdotes unless someone's done a survey, but in my experience very few people use a native app for email anymore. I do so, but can't think of a single other person I know who does. Almost everyone's on Gmail, and a lot of people only do IM (Gchat, Facebook Chat) in the browser, too. And there was never a native desktop app for Facebook, but that didn't prevent it from getting a billion users. Likewise, where's the native app for YouTube? We all used to download videos and then watch them in native video players. Not anymore. Maybe it's a matter of age — I suspect you might be a little older than me and the crowd I hang out with (mostly mid-20s). From my vantage point web apps have obviously already replaced many categories of native apps, and are on the way to replace more. It seems as if you are denying something that already happened.

jcd748 14y ago
I went from using a webapp exclusively for email, back to a traditional client. The reason was that the webapp didn't expose enough functionality, and I couldn't change the top-posting default value. Joining several email lists where bottom-posting was the norm, it made sense to adapt to that, and I ended up adopting Thunderbird. Prior to that, I hadn't used a "traditional" email client since pine and Pegasus Mail in the late 90s.
Encosia 14y ago
I think a lot of people who have only been exposed to web based email don't realize what they're missing in a good native client. I have several friends in that mid/late-20s age range that went to work in corporate jobs, used Outlook 2010 for the first time, and then asked me for help getting their personal Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail accounts working with Outlook because they like doing email there so much more once they learn to use it well. edit: BTW, I see your comment was downvoted while I was writing mine. I just wanted to say that I did not downvote yours; you make good points about Facebook and YouTube, to be sure.
- purplelobster 14y ago
  Outlooks is so much worse than gmail in almost every way. The only good thing about it for work is integration with all the other MS applications. My experience with Outlook after many years of gmail has been nothing but frustrating, and I hear the same story everywhere.

_Dude_ 14y ago

"Now it's a few years later, and there's been a lot of HTML5 hype." Since there is no real choice of what language to use on client side nowadays it is easier to pretend and say that HTML and JS are awesome.