Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

return42.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#21

Post by tlrobinson »

stefano wrote: post #17
arithmetic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be some desktop applications which doesn't make a ton of sense (either logically or financially) to port them to the web. For most other type of applications, we already have web equivalents (so coyly termed as "the lite version" in some cases). Javascript may be the most awful language to write code in. But, if there are users (and a way to make money), you'll always find developers willing to writ…

Javascript is actually a quite good language: it has a dynamic object model and real closures. It has its deficencies, of course (like scoping rules). It's really bad if you prefer statically typed languages, though, because on the client side on the web you have no other choice for the moment. Probably in the future we will see language implementations that use js as a target language become more mature and widespre…

GWT already offers static typing.

I recently added a runtime type checker (for method args/return values) to Objective-J, and intend on adding optional static typing at some point.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#22

Post by chrischen »

JimmyL wrote: post #20
chrischen wrote: post #8

The web can never replace the power of desktop applications, and desktop applications can never beat the simplicity of web applications (with both in their current forms). We are currently blurring the lines between desktop and and web, but in the end it will probably resemble more of desktop applications. This is because current web applications run in the browser only because of the limitations of current web techn…

The product that I really think blurs the line right now is Mozilla Prism ( http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/ ). Sure, "we" know that a Prism "app" is really just a web app running inside of a stripped-down copy of Firefox, but the average person (who makes the market) doesn't know that. I've set up some non-technical friends with a copy of Firefox, as well as three or four Prism "apps" - Gmail, Google reader, N…

A web app is an application that requires at least a browser to run. Why? Because the web as we traditionally know it is accessed through a browser and any application that still requires a browser to run cannot be considered a desktop app.

As for prism it still doesn't actually make that app a desktop application because all it still contains the environment designed to run web apps and just simulates a desktop app. You still use it to run apps designed for the browser.

The blurring of the lines will come as web apps start to no longer need a browser to run. So when the day comes I can start up my OS, type gmail.com, and it runs the Gmail app, then the distinction between web and desktop app will truly have vanished. But until then anything that still requires a browser, or browser technology is still in the transition stage.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#23

Post by uuilly »

Here is a good / bad list I made of attributes of desktop sw:

Good:

-Drag and drop eg: Easier to attach a photo to an email

-OS integration eg: iPhoto => set as desktop, Excel => uses outlook contacts

-Access to hardware eg: GPU, usb, accelerometers, camera

-GUI responsiveness

-Fully customizable flow eg: Not forced into the "back" button paradigm.

-Control over version eg: If there is a bug, you can wait to upgrade.

-Control over data eg: I can't get my FB contacts

-No need to upload data to another app to edit it. eg: photos etc

-SPEED

-Works w/o connection

-Keyboard shortcuts

-Richness of GUI

-file assoc - mailto link etc. You determine what app uses what extension.

Bad:

-Installer eg: no "insta-play"

-Spyware

-Manual updates

-no HUGE data sets eg: youtube / wikipedia

-Uninstaller eg: doesn't uninstall potentially corrupt prefs

-expensive for developers eg: No knowledge of user's environment.

-!Cross platform

-No Data sync across machines

Now, before some wise guy says that all n things can be solved w/ n different plugins, let me just say this list is for the general case. Since most people don't have those plugins it's silly to build a business around them. Unless of course you have some way of spreading them, which you usually don't.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#24

Post by JimmyL »

chrischen wrote: post #22
JimmyL wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product that I really think blurs the line right now is Mozilla Prism ( http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/ ). Sure, "we" know that a Prism "app" is really just a web app running inside of a stripped-down copy of Firefox, but the average person (who makes the market) doesn't know that. I've set up some non-technical friends with a copy of Firefox, as well as three or four Prism "apps" - Gmail, Google reader, N…

A web app is an application that requires at least a browser to run. Why? Because the web as we traditionally know it is accessed through a browser and any application that still requires a browser to run cannot be considered a desktop app. As for prism it still doesn't actually make that app a desktop application because all it still contains the environment designed to run web apps and just simulates a desktop app.…

How do you define a browser?

If you strip away the visual chrome, a browser is simply a piece of software that interprets a certain set of languages and displays the result, not unlike the JVM or the CLR.

As for your example, I can do that now - when I type gmail.com into the Vista Run dialog, my browser opens up and runs the Gmail app. How is this different from typing in the name of a JAR file and having it run, aside from a different program being run to interpret the code? Also, what about the tight IE-Explorer integration in XP, where I could open a normal Explorer window, type in gmail.com in the location bar, and then Gmail would open in that window (and have the UI change to IE's chrome)?

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#25

Post by JimmyL »

Where do things like all-Flash web apps fall? Are they web apps, since I use my browser to get to a web page that contains no more code than is needed to launch the Flash movie? But what if I chose to download (or otherwise receive) the .fla file and launch it using Flash Player - someone could launch it this way without ever having Firefox installed.

Or consider Java Web Start applications - you click one link in a browser, which causes a helper to fire, some code to download, and an app to be launched? What are they?

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#26

Post by chrischen »

JimmyL wrote: post #24
chrischen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A web app is an application that requires at least a browser to run. Why? Because the web as we traditionally know it is accessed through a browser and any application that still requires a browser to run cannot be considered a desktop app. As for prism it still doesn't actually make that app a desktop application because all it still contains the environment designed to run web apps and just simulates a desktop app.…

How do you define a browser? If you strip away the visual chrome, a browser is simply a piece of software that interprets a certain set of languages and displays the result, not unlike the JVM or the CLR. As for your example, I can do that now - when I type gmail.com into the Vista Run dialog, my browser opens up and runs the Gmail app. How is this different from typing in the name of a JAR file and having it run, as…

Because your internet explorer does not allow apps to access low level functions. It still resembles its original purpose: the serving of static pages.

Web apps should break out of the prison that is the browser.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#27

Post by CyberFonic »

uuilly wrote: post #23

Here is a good / bad list I made of attributes of desktop sw: Good: -Drag and drop eg: Easier to attach a photo to an email -OS integration eg: iPhoto => set as desktop, Excel => uses outlook contacts -Access to hardware eg: GPU, usb, accelerometers, camera -GUI responsiveness -Fully customizable flow eg: Not forced into the "back" button paradigm. -Control over version eg: If there is a bug, you can wait to upgrade.…

It's about the sweet-spot. A professional photographer uses Photoshop in a manner that doesn't work well as a web app. However, a party goer takes snaps and posts them to their web space of choice. Same core concept, different level of use and thus different environment. The platform choice is based upon the target audience. There's plenty of room for both approaches.

Similar dichotomy exists in most spaces, casual word processing works well over the web, but I'd rather write a thesis with a desktop hosted word processor. Ditto for IDE's, CAD, NLE, spreadsheets, etc.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#28

Post by moe »

JimmyL wrote: post #25

Where do things like all-Flash web apps fall? Are they web apps, since I use my browser to get to a web page that contains no more code than is needed to launch the Flash movie? But what if I chose to download (or otherwise receive) the .fla file and launch it using Flash Player - someone could launch it this way without ever having Firefox installed. Or consider Java Web Start applications - you click one link in a…

What are they?

The future.

The extent to which we constrain ourselves to HTML/JS nowadays is borderline ridiculous. AIR exists and it works. It lets you build user interfaces on a much more powerful platform and these apps will run equally well inside a browser tab or a desktop window. The problem with AIR (and silverlight) is the vendor lockin, nobody likes to rely on proprietary technology.

Free alternatives will emerge as we push the limits of HTML further.

Re: Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate

#29

Post by Poiesis »

patio11 wrote: post #3

Previously I have been quite heavily invested in the The Desktop App Will Never Die camp. Based on my experiences in the last month from selling, essentially, the same application on the desktop and on the web... I think I owe PG an apology for doubting him. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=503959 There is still a space for users of desktop apps. I know many of my users love the permanence/physicality/"realness" o…

It is very, very interesting to see someone in a position to essentially A/B test sales of the same app online and on the desktop. Thanks for the data.

I am a bit less surprised when I checked the site and noticed that you don't seem to have a subscription model, but rather a one time fee. Am I missing something, and if not--are your worried about the lifetime cost of a customer being higher than the one-time sale revenue?

I don't usually see webapps for a fixed fee, so I was curious.

Post reply on HN