Web applications are pretty amazing; amazing enough to convince a company like Google to invest all their money and efforts into developing them exclusively, and start wooing enterprise customers towards using them. They have a lot to offer, least of which is anywhere access to data and operating system independence. Most desktop applications today have a basic but functional web counterpart, which will only improve as web languages evolve to suit the new wave of development needs.⌘
Web Application • an application that is accessed via web browser over a network such as the Internet or an intranet.⌘
Till now, I’ve been somewhat neutral about web applications and the popular notion that the browser is making the operating system irrelevant. But the more efforts I see being put into web development, the direction applications are taking, the more I realise that web applications are not the future. Given whatever number of years, our workflow is not going to slowly migrate completely online. Companies like Google and Apple, with their respective web browsers, might be trying to push the web as a viable platform, but it’ll be long — too long — before they reach where they’re trying to. By then, something else will come along that will again change the field. That’s how it rolls, right?⌘
No good reason
If I try to list out some reasons as to why one might use a web application at all, the ones highest up on the list seem to be that 1) the user gets to access his/her files from anywhere without hassles, 2) familiar UI and uniform functionality, while being easily availabile everywhere regardless of operating system (but dependent on the browser), and 3) the applications can be updated quickly, or the community can release client-side features (using extensions like GreaseKit/Greasemonkey) that fill the holes the original developers didn’t.⌘
Access to files from anywhere is not really web application specific. It’s a simple synchronisation with the cloud, which any desktop application can do. Services like DropBox get the job done very nicely, but Apple and Microsoft have their own cloud sync solutions as well if one needs it. There might be issues with the format of files and opening them in a compatible application on a particular system, but with most document formats becoming pretty much standard (like .DOC and .PDF), that is fast becoming moot. OS X doesn’t even need Photoshop to preview .PSD files, for example.⌘
Easy availability, familiar UI and uniform functionality are important points. It’s the reason Microsoft Office is so popular, and why the online version of Office is also going to be somewhat of a hit. It’s why Google’s online office apps are doing so well. But with the reducing form factors of today’s computers, the availability of the apps that we’re used to is becoming less of a hurdle. There’s an iPhone OS equivalent for almost all the good OS X apps, and basic versions of ones that aren’t. These native apps make use of (or at least, can, if they want to) the whole set of features in the iPhone — from multitouch to push notifications — which web apps cannot, unless Apple defines an API bridge for web apps (using Javascript) to access Cocoa Touch. I’m not aware of any such thing, or plans to develop something similar1.⌘
The Palm Prē uses web technologies, but to create native applications. Android uses Java, if I recall correctly. None of the big three mobile platforms have a way for web applications to offer powerful and rich experiences that outdo their native counterparts. If you can carry your computer anywhere you go, why do you need the easy accessibility of a weaker web application? It’s clear that the future is smaller and faster hand-held devices. Our desktop computers will probably become the mothership with which we sync at the end of the day, or use for tasks that need bigger screens. Portability of applications won’t be much much of an issue soon.⌘
Quick and frequent updates are good, and community support is even better. But unless in good hands like a hardened company (which too, is no guarantee), it tells developers that they can be sloppy. They can be sloppy about security, about the UI, and about pretty much everything that developers of slower cycled desktop applications know to take seriously. That said, almost all desktop applications today come with self-update mechanisms and plug-in architectures. At least, all the open-source ones do, like Adium and Transmission. Broadband has made downloading big files a non-issue, again. All one needs to do, is click “Update” when the dialogue box pops up asking for it.⌘
But there’s more
While those might seem like relatively minor issues and a “compromise for something better” — whatever that “something” might be — my main gripe against web applications is security. Almost every open platform is always under attack. Some are architecturally sound, so can stave them off, but others crumple quite easily. There’s a golden rule of the web that we all understand but is not said loud enough:⌘
If you want to keep something hidden from others, don’t put it on the Internet.
That’s because anything on the Internet, is visible and accessible to somebody. In the worst case — anybody. It’s the nature of computers. Even in office LANs, nothing is secure the moment your computer is connected to the network, but you trust your office employees and the network more than you trust a random user on the Internet. So if you’re planning on using web applications to work with really sensitive documents and files, I suggest you think twice. This was one of the implications of using the cloud that Richard Stallman raised when he called it “stupidity” — of losing control. I’m not as fanatically against it as him, but I can see where he is coming from. One is in better hands when using Google Apps, but even they are known to go down every now and then.⌘
Attempts like Google’s Chrome OS at bridging the gap between the web and the desktop are interesting. But the only reason they’re doing this is because they have vested interests in dethroning Microsoft’s monopoly over the desktop, just like the Linux zealots (who have their own issues with anarchical features, functions and compatibility of their various systems). I don’t want to comment on anything before seeing what is in store, but Chrome OS is a vapourware product in its alpha stage. Nobody has any idea of how it’s going to work, except some tid-bits of what it’s going to try to do. From whatever I’ve seen and read though, it’s not compelling. Not even a little.⌘
I’m not spelling doom here. I am saying that web applications are just a part of the future which promises more portability, usability, openness and freedom. As I’ve said before and will continue to preach, An application that runs in an environment can not be more important than the environment itself. That’s not something which will change.⌘
Web applications are natural extensions for desktop applications, not a substitute.⌘