Code: Client vs Web
on 01.02.07, 09:58pm in software • share on facebook • comments (2)
[Tony Schreiner] As a developer who specializes in client-side applications, I can’t help but be amused and somewhat puzzled by some of the types of web-based applications people come up with. A great example are web sites that help resize and crop digital photos. There are actually a bunch of them out there; a few that were recently mentioned on digg.com (one of my favorite sites lately) include http://www.resizr.com/ and http://resizr.lord-lance.com/.
They seem to be missing the point. How could it possibly be better to upload a 5-10 megapixel image to a site (which can take several minutes per image even on a very fast connection, as upload speed is usually constrained much more than download speed), have the server resize it, and then download the resized image be better than using a client-side application to resize the image almost instantly, and with full interaction and nearly instant undo? Also, how can these sites afford the bandwidth costs?
Is this a usability issue, or has the world simply gone mad?
Ironically, I recently had a (web) developer call me a relic because I’m a C++ (and Win32) guy at heart.
I believe that rich client apps provide a better experience than many of their web counterparts. Don’t get me wrong, I frequently use excellent web-based applications (such as Outlook Web Access) and am a big supporter of having my essential data ‘nuggets’ in the cloud (contacts, email, etc.). But the experience, IMHO, pales in comparison to that of a well designed client-side application.
Are rich client-side applications going the way of the dinosaur?
Grover Saunders (January 3, 2007 @ 9:23 am)
I think Tony is missing the point. I don’t think that anyone would suggest you use a site like that on a regular basis. I have dozens of programs on my own machine that could easily resize a picture because I do that regularly. But when I’m at my mom’s house (who still uses a film camera) and I want to email out pictures from that morning, it’s nice to have something I can use in a pinch in a place where it makes little sense for me to download some software for a one time use. Not to mention situations where that’s impossible (internet cafe, labs, locked down work computers, etc…)
I think webmail is the perfect example of this. I will always prefer to have a client on my home and work computer for day to day use where I can make backups and have the client interact with the rest of the OS, but it’s nice to be able to access my email without having to download, install and configure a mail client when I’m away from home.
The idea of running software directly from the network (be it a web app run in a browser or the whole OS) is one that has been around for a long long time, and I just don’t think consumers want it. And I think at least some of that is a sense of ownership. Running from the network means that the host can change or revoke the software at any time, and regardless of it makes the most logical sense, I think most folks just don’t feel comfortable with that.
Willie Wilderquist (January 3, 2007 @ 5:07 pm)
The problem that I see with the current ISV market is that “Free Software” (not open software) has become a quality alternative. More importantly, what is happening is that companies like Google are offering Picasa for free. They have the $1B+ bank that allows them to build applications and give them away. There is no threat of the client application to the Search Web Site and the 3rd party Web Site network which they make their money.
The other thing that is happening is that the OS now gives you all the software you need. Get a copy of any OS and you get (mostly) what you need. What you don’t get, there are a few vendors like Adobe (for pro photographers), AutoDesk (for 3D), Microsoft (for Office) that you get the applications you need to do your job. Everything else is just bundled with the OS. And, if you are lucky enough to use OS-X, you get developer tools for free and if you use Linux, you pretty much get everything.
Web 2.0 applications are pretty much going to be all your corporate applications that talk to ActiveDirectory, SAP, Siebel, or some random database. Your content creation applications will stay client. The problem is, the content creation applications are a small number comparied to “communication” applications that let me share, tag, blog, etc. Those are all web based.
Client applications gone the way of Communism? No, it is just that there will be a few strong software companies left (say 3 or 4) and everything else is online collaboration.