Why the future is not AJAX

Dan Warne23 July 2006, 4:15 AM

OPINION |How can anyone seriously argue that writing a whole spreadsheet package in Javascript is anything more than a hack? The future is in desktop apps that mirror settings and documents online. Firefox can do it; the mystery is why more software doesn't.


AJAX apps running inside your web browser aren't going to kill your desktop apps any time soon.

Rather, I think the browser sync extensions available for Firefox are showing the future for 'online apps'.

These apps will run locally but mirror all settings and documents online, so that they can be accessed at any PC with just a username and password.

Download Squad's Jason Clarke touched on this a few days ago, writing:

We now live in a world where almost every computer can be connected in some way to almost every other computer - this simply shouldn't be necessary to manually reconfigure software on separate machines anymore!

I believe this cuts right to the core of the issue of what the next 'killer feature' on the internet is going to be.
How many people now run Firefox full-time on all their PCs simple because of Google Browser Sync? I know I do. Whenever I set up a new computer or move between PCs (or Macs), my latest bookmarks, cookies, browsing history etc are always in sync between them.

This is an indispensable advantage over other single-platform browsers like Apple Safari or Internet Explorer for Windows.

Imagine if Adobe mirrored all settings online for its apps. It would have the potential to allow designers to move freely between workstations -- Mac or PC -- knowing that their particular Photoshop actions and pallette configuraion would always be available.

In Microsoft Word, it would be incredibly useful for your custom dictionary entries, autocorrect entries and interface customisations to be instantly available on any PC. Not to mention turning Clippy off automatically on every new copy of Word you use.

And no, Microsoft's "roaming profiles" are not even remotely the same thing. If they're hosted on a local network share then they're not available for syncing at home. They're also very complex to set up. Settings sync needs to be as easy as entering a username and a password.

Here's what I think: fully online apps, where the app runs in your web browser and all your data is stored online, will not see widescale adoption in the short term.

What Google is doing with its online office suite is tremendously impressive given the limitations of web browsers. But if you try to ernestly use Google Spreadsheet for anything more than sharing basic lists of things with coworkers, you're bound to become frustrated by slowness, foibles with interacting with a Javascript app and its dependency on a robust internet connection.

Who can seriouly argue that writing a whole spreadsheet package in Javascript is anything more than a hack? Web browsers are immature application environments.
The real opportunity is to make software that shares the best of both worlds: the speed and stability of running locally on your machine and the portability of software that stores its settings (and potentially documents) online.

Microsoft's could upgrade its Office apps to mirror settings between systems seamlessly over the internet.

It's an even bigger opportunity for the open source movement, because open source developers typically develop feature-equivalent software across platforms, making online synchronisation even more valuable.

What surprises me is that very few apps do any online configuration syncing. Apple's .Mac service is a pioneer in this space, but it is fundamentally flawed because it is only available for Mac applications to use, and its it has an $A139.95 price acting as a high barrier for entry.

Microsoft has its Office Live service but that's just for "free web hosting, free e-mail, and web services". None of Microsoft's promotional material mentions that you'll be able to sync Office settings across PCs easily.

Now is the time for software makers to leap head first into settings sync. If they don't, smaller, more agile competitors will, and will gain market share quickly with the convenience offered by this feature.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Neville Franks:

Dan,
I got here from your post at Downloads Squad, where I'd also posted.

Being a developer of Desktops apps I have to agree that they have plenty of life left in them yet. I and also agree that using the Net to synchronize multiples copies of an app at different locations is a real winner. In fact I'm working on just that for my product Surfulater ( http://www.surfulater.com ). I'm not just syncing app settings but the actual databases. This comes from my users, who use Surfulater at work and home and want their knowledge bases kept in sync without having to copy them back and forth manually.

I see lots of potential for techniques such this and with the high levels of connectivity we have (even here in Australia) we have the means to the end.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tom Taborda:

What about the Web OSs ?

Check this ZDNet article
http://snipurl.com/ttm1

Wikipedia entry
http://snipurl.com/ttm7
I see a future in it

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Liam:

While you are *definitely* correct that online apps like Google Spreadsheet are little more than a bit of fun to play with on the side and could never replace something like Microsoft Excel there are some services available that are perfect.

Two that very quickly come to mind are:
1/ Gmail: I use Gmail because a good mail application (with the exception of Mail.app on OS X, it seems) is difficult to find, and couple that with a sometimes hard to get IMAP service, and a rarely available LDAP address book syncing server, it seems that Gmail is the best option. And besides, the 2GB+ of storage space is near-infinite for my uses.

2/ Google Calendar: again, with no syncing between services, and the fact that I am always connected to the Internet makes GCal perfect. I am also yet to find a decent calendar program: Outlook, iCal, even Mozilla's trial calendar that never seemed to get off the ground; I wouldn't want to sync any of them from computer-to-computer. They are all vastly inferior to GCal's portability. Sure it's buggy. Sure some features could be included and extended, but it's still in Beta. Google is quite good at responding to feature suggestions levelled at them.

Although the complete future may not be AJAX, and there's no doubting that some kind of widely-available setting syncing software would be outstanding, and I for one would certainly use it, there is definitely still room for web-only services to fill the feature and usability gap inherent in PC/Mac applications.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags