6 ms·

I've never agreed with this PG essay. Granted its a couple of years old, but I think its totally off-base. Specifically: "Gmail also showed how much you could

by qeorge 18y ago

I've never agreed with this PG essay. Granted its a couple of years old, but I think its totally off-base. Specifically: "Gmail also showed how much you could do with web-based software, if you took advantage of what later came to be called "Ajax." And that was the second cause of Microsoft's death: everyone can see the desktop is over. It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the web - not just email, but everything, right up to Photoshop. Even Microsoft sees that now." I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. The idea of being forced to use all software through a browser sounds bloody awful to me. Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT. What we're more likely to see is cloud-based apps, which deliver the portability and connectivity we've come to expect from web apps. I can absolutely see myself using a cloud based version of Photoshop, but it would still be "desktop" software. Not surprisingly MS is heavily invested in the virtualization and server markets. Surprisingly, I think PG forgot this basic point: products succeed because people want them, not because of their underlying technology. Gmail became popular not because it employed AJAX or was based online, but because it solved a hair-on-fire problem: tiny inbox sizes. "The third cause of Microsoft's death was broadband Internet. Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop." This statement I also find ridiculous. If anything, increased broadband availability has made computers even more of a must-have product. And I've seen absolutely nothing to back up a claim that of these new computers less of them are running Windows. "The last nail in the coffin came, of all places, from Apple. Thanks to OS X, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. [2] Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows." Dude, come on. Yes, Apple made an amazing comeback. No, they haven't had anything close to a "complete victory." Now, I say this as someone who makes custom web apps for small businesses, and someone whose father had an app completely ripped off and suffocated by MS circa 2000. A big part of me wants this to be true, but I know it isn't. In conclusion: The revolution in web apps was making them behave more like desktop apps. So why is it surprising to see desktop apps enjoy a renaissance by acting more like web apps?

axod 18y ago
>> "Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT." What you seem to fail to see is that you're an outlier. Most people want photoshop through a browser. Most people already do most of their stuff through a browser. It's funny to even debate, because it's happening/happened for large amounts of people out there already. Ask your parents what they do on the computer, and it's likely to be 90%+ web, with perhaps a couple of desktop apps. If that. Ironically, it's the techie usually early adopters that are lagging here, preferring to stick with desktop software. The people leading the webapp charge are people who don't want the fuss of downloading desktop software, with potential spyware etc, and just go to google and find a webapp instead. The same phenomenon exists when some people discuss advertising. "No one clicks on ads anymore" - it's easy to say, if you install adblock, or just don't click on ads, but this is a total minority. The majority do click on ads. Just like the majority want, and use webapps over desktop apps. >> "Gmail became popular not because it employed AJAX or was based online, but because it solved a hair-on-fire problem: tiny inbox sizes." I think actually the reason it succeeded was because it had ridiculously fast searching, and unlike a desktop app, you don't have to worry about your storage. I don't think the majority of people really cared about inbox size. The fact you could easily search for things in a simple and blazingly fast webapp was key. For most people, it is better than a desktop app. >> "This statement I also find ridiculous. If anything, increased broadband availability has made computers even more of a must-have product." The fact that broadband access has increased etc means there's less need to have a thick client. Where previously you needed to download a video, click on it, watch it, we all now just watch videos streamed to us by a webapp. When we all have 1Gbps connections, why would we need a full powerful computer each? Why would it not be in most persons better interest to just have a very thin power conserving client that connects up to the big servers doing the grunt work. The fact is, it's happening, and will continue to happen. You can't stop it. It's inevitable. You might prefer to stick with your computer and desktop apps, but you'll be a small minority, like the people who still buy records on vinyl. >> "The revolution in web apps was making them behave more like desktop apps." I disagree with that. The revolution in webapps is making them work BETTER than desktop apps. Gmail can search my mail much faster than my computer can. Mibbit can do things impossible with desktop IRC clients. etc etc The reason Microsoft are 'dead' is that they don't get it. They're dead in a similar sense to the music industry IMHO - the market changed around them and they completely failed to adapt.
statictype 18y ago
>The idea of being forced to use all software through a browser sounds bloody awful to me To me too. I never understood, ten years ago, why on earth most people would prefer a web-based email client to a native desktop app but they did. And today that percentage is just increasing. Most people just don't have the same concerns you and I do. >>Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Yeah, this one didn't make sense. If you're surprised when you come across a computer running the desktop OS used by more than 75% ([citation needed]) of the populace, then you clearly move in very narrow circles.
- Tamerlin 18y ago
  "To me too. I never understood, ten years ago, why on earth most people would prefer a web-based email client to a native desktop app but they did. And today that percentage is just increasing. Most people just don't have the same concerns you and I do." For me it had more to do with the fact that GMail's minimalist UI ended up being more responsive than the likes of Outlook. "Yeah, this one didn't make sense. If you're surprised when you come across a computer running the desktop OS used by more than 75% ([citation needed]) of the populace, then you clearly move in very narrow circles." I'm fairly certain that it's still more than 75%. It's also very likely that Dell's monthly sales still exceed Apple's annual sales of computers. Apple's sales have been higher than usual, but still hasn't managed to make much of a dent in the Windows market -- and don't forget that mac users are buying Windows licences so that they can run Windows-only software also... so even though those are probably the minority of mac buyers, it does suggest that Apple's non-victory is even less complete than PG is implying. :)
- MaysonL 18y ago
  I would guess that most of the machines that pg runs across are machines used by software producers rather than software consumers (and more specifically web software producers in young companies), and that few of these run Windows is not at all surprising
ken 18y ago
"Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT." That sounds like "3d games in Windows?" in 1995, or any other "$perf_sucking_app in $new_environment". The "browser" that's going to run Photoshop 2015 won't be Netscape 3. It'll have a JIT'd JS engine (so it'll be really fast), it'll have local storage (so you don't need to upload anything), it'll have efficient graphics libraries (so it can use your video card), it'll have native-feeling controls, and so on. It's a "browser" only in that it's a continuous upgrade from our beloved Netscape, but it won't look much like Netscape at all. In terms of user experience, it'll be basically like the Photoshop you know and love, except without the adventure that is the Adobe installer.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  All that has been done here, is replacing the OS with the browser. That is actually what is happening. Now I am intrigued: an OS that is its own browser. Not eyeOS and the like: I mean the window manager is the browser. You browse a VFS which is mounted, locally or remotely; the browser doesn't see a difference. XUL is the default UI language. The browser handles threading, even. You have no desktop but you have a homepage. Exit the browser, power down. Am I talking about something that exists? Stripped-down single-app systems like kiosks don't count... or should they count?

by qeorge 18y ago

axod 18y ago

>> "Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT." What you seem to fail to see is that you're an outlier. Most people want photoshop through a browser. Most people already do most of their stuff through a browser. It's funny to even debate, because it's happening/happened for large amounts of people out there already. Ask your parents what they do on the computer, and it's likely to be 90%+ web, with perhaps a couple of desktop apps. If that. Ironically, it's the techie usually early adopters that are lagging here, preferring to stick with desktop software. The people leading the webapp charge are people who don't want the fuss of downloading desktop software, with potential spyware etc, and just go to google and find a webapp instead. The same phenomenon exists when some people discuss advertising. "No one clicks on ads anymore" - it's easy to say, if you install adblock, or just don't click on ads, but this is a total minority. The majority do click on ads. Just like the majority want, and use webapps over desktop apps. >> "Gmail became popular not because it employed AJAX or was based online, but because it solved a hair-on-fire problem: tiny inbox sizes." I think actually the reason it succeeded was because it had ridiculously fast searching, and unlike a desktop app, you don't have to worry about your storage. I don't think the majority of people really cared about inbox size. The fact you could easily search for things in a simple and blazingly fast webapp was key. For most people, it is better than a desktop app. >> "This statement I also find ridiculous. If anything, increased broadband availability has made computers even more of a must-have product." The fact that broadband access has increased etc means there's less need to have a thick client. Where previously you needed to download a video, click on it, watch it, we all now just watch videos streamed to us by a webapp. When we all have 1Gbps connections, why would we need a full powerful computer each? Why would it not be in most persons better interest to just have a very thin power conserving client that connects up to the big servers doing the grunt work. The fact is, it's happening, and will continue to happen. You can't stop it. It's inevitable. You might prefer to stick with your computer and desktop apps, but you'll be a small minority, like the people who still buy records on vinyl. >> "The revolution in web apps was making them behave more like desktop apps." I disagree with that. The revolution in webapps is making them work BETTER than desktop apps. Gmail can search my mail much faster than my computer can. Mibbit can do things impossible with desktop IRC clients. etc etc The reason Microsoft are 'dead' is that they don't get it. They're dead in a similar sense to the music industry IMHO - the market changed around them and they completely failed to adapt.

statictype 18y ago

>The idea of being forced to use all software through a browser sounds bloody awful to me To me too. I never understood, ten years ago, why on earth most people would prefer a web-based email client to a native desktop app but they did. And today that percentage is just increasing. Most people just don't have the same concerns you and I do. >>Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Yeah, this one didn't make sense. If you're surprised when you come across a computer running the desktop OS used by more than 75% ([citation needed]) of the populace, then you clearly move in very narrow circles.

Tamerlin 18y ago
"To me too. I never understood, ten years ago, why on earth most people would prefer a web-based email client to a native desktop app but they did. And today that percentage is just increasing. Most people just don't have the same concerns you and I do." For me it had more to do with the fact that GMail's minimalist UI ended up being more responsive than the likes of Outlook. "Yeah, this one didn't make sense. If you're surprised when you come across a computer running the desktop OS used by more than 75% ([citation needed]) of the populace, then you clearly move in very narrow circles." I'm fairly certain that it's still more than 75%. It's also very likely that Dell's monthly sales still exceed Apple's annual sales of computers. Apple's sales have been higher than usual, but still hasn't managed to make much of a dent in the Windows market -- and don't forget that mac users are buying Windows licences so that they can run Windows-only software also... so even though those are probably the minority of mac buyers, it does suggest that Apple's non-victory is even less complete than PG is implying. :)
MaysonL 18y ago
I would guess that most of the machines that pg runs across are machines used by software producers rather than software consumers (and more specifically web software producers in young companies), and that few of these run Windows is not at all surprising

ken 18y ago

"Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT." That sounds like "3d games in Windows?" in 1995, or any other "$perf_sucking_app in $new_environment". The "browser" that's going to run Photoshop 2015 won't be Netscape 3. It'll have a JIT'd JS engine (so it'll be really fast), it'll have local storage (so you don't need to upload anything), it'll have efficient graphics libraries (so it can use your video card), it'll have native-feeling controls, and so on. It's a "browser" only in that it's a continuous upgrade from our beloved Netscape, but it won't look much like Netscape at all. In terms of user experience, it'll be basically like the Photoshop you know and love, except without the adventure that is the Adobe installer.

whacked_new 18y ago
All that has been done here, is replacing the OS with the browser. That is actually what is happening. Now I am intrigued: an OS that is its own browser. Not eyeOS and the like: I mean the window manager is the browser. You browse a VFS which is mounted, locally or remotely; the browser doesn't see a difference. XUL is the default UI language. The browser handles threading, even. You have no desktop but you have a homepage. Exit the browser, power down. Am I talking about something that exists? Stripped-down single-app systems like kiosks don't count... or should they count?