No big deal, really. This is what we'd expect Google to say. Google does the web, that's the paradigm they'd naturally want to build around. So, hot on the heels of this Chrome OS announcemnt they'd naturally say that their paradigm is the way to go. Doesn't need to have any actual basis in reality. It's a declaratory statement to get attention and spark interest.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google: The Web, Not App Stores, is the Future Of Mobile Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your opinion and your experience noted. However, like any major technology shift, there are early-adopters, resisters, and those in the middle who will adopt when it makes sense to them. Web apps are a present-day reality for early-adopters. I only suggest that it is a matter of time before the rest follow. I'm not claiming Google will "win" this space like search, only that the technology is there and Google is one of the leaders.
Just think of all the infrastructure costs, IT support costs, and upgrade costs that can be saved; there is a real business case for these apps. For those of us in the software industry, we have gone through similar transformations in the past -- this one is no different. In my experience and opinion, this is a no-brainer.
LMAO
#1: Cellular technology infrastructure in the U.S. is not there yet & Google has no control over its deployment, nor does Apple.
#2: I fell asleep before the Google guys finally got into the demo! LOL
Maybe Google should hire Steve Jobs to do this demo instead next time? LMAO
(cruel joke, but deservedly so)
PS: Do you work for Google, or was that a Google inserted ad on MacRumors.com?
PPS: Gone With The Wind was a shorter movie IIRC and coincidently also would grind my iPhone to a halt just like everything Google is proposing!
I was a skeptic on web apps, until this week. Then Palm put out their SDK and is requiring Apple-like app approval and sale through Palm's store. And then Verizon announced that all phones are going to have to have some kind of Verizon App Store.
As a developer, I decided to switch to doing all web-based mobile stuff. Outside of a few specialized apps and cutting edge games, most things can be done quite nicely with cross-platform web technologies. I'm not going to invest my development skills in proprietary platforms where companies want to dictate what I can publish, where I can publish it, and then also skim their cut off the top. Sounds like a cartel at best and racketeering at worst.
As a developer, I decided to switch to doing all web-based mobile stuff. Outside of a few specialized apps and cutting edge games, most things can be done quite nicely with cross-platform web technologies. I'm not going to invest my development skills in proprietary platforms where companies want to dictate what I can publish, where I can publish it, and then also skim their cut off the top. Sounds like a cartel at best and racketeering at worst.
This is barely reconstructed Gatesean style Trollogy being served up for the disaffected ones left out of the Apple inspired, but user-driven popular revolution.
Presumably quoting Gundotra, the FT article did mention the 1.5 Billion downloads from the App Store, but left out the other rather crucial figure that flies in the face of Gundotra's theory: the 65,000 actual apps available from the App Store, and the huge number of developers choosing to develop for the iPhone/iPod Touch, rather than ANY other device or platform.
Now, that IS a trend.
If the G1/Android initiative had caused any kind of a significant wave, then maybe his words might have some credibility. But we only have to look at the number of apps available for ALL the other incumbent players, to make a credible assessment of the situation now:
Palm: 18
Blackberry: 1,030 [After TEN YEARS on the market]
Nokia: 1,088
Android: 4,900
Windows Mobile: Well, I can only find 8 on the Ms site!
Will this be reversed over the next five years? Who can tell? One thing's for certain though, none of us have any anecdotal evidence to support Gundotra's wild theory. I suspect he's simply expressing Google's hopes that their Cloud-based future will be more relevant to the public than Apple's model currently is.
But Google should be careful. Ease of use is currently the driver - ease of device use and app acquisition. And where the take from disposable income is either zero or minimal, people are very happy to log onto the iTunes App Store. Is it as easy to D/L an app for any other platform or device? Hell no.
So, a web-based alternative looks, at first, to be a credible alternative. But changing people's habits from app ownership on a favourite device that just works, to using any number of other devices to log onto a web-based application, feels a bit too much like coin op TV to many people! There's nothing tangible.
Presumably quoting Gundotra, the FT article did mention the 1.5 Billion downloads from the App Store, but left out the other rather crucial figure that flies in the face of Gundotra's theory: the 65,000 actual apps available from the App Store, and the huge number of developers choosing to develop for the iPhone/iPod Touch, rather than ANY other device or platform.
Now, that IS a trend.
If the G1/Android initiative had caused any kind of a significant wave, then maybe his words might have some credibility. But we only have to look at the number of apps available for ALL the other incumbent players, to make a credible assessment of the situation now:
Palm: 18
Blackberry: 1,030 [After TEN YEARS on the market]
Nokia: 1,088
Android: 4,900
Windows Mobile: Well, I can only find 8 on the Ms site!
Will this be reversed over the next five years? Who can tell? One thing's for certain though, none of us have any anecdotal evidence to support Gundotra's wild theory. I suspect he's simply expressing Google's hopes that their Cloud-based future will be more relevant to the public than Apple's model currently is.
But Google should be careful. Ease of use is currently the driver - ease of device use and app acquisition. And where the take from disposable income is either zero or minimal, people are very happy to log onto the iTunes App Store. Is it as easy to D/L an app for any other platform or device? Hell no.
So, a web-based alternative looks, at first, to be a credible alternative. But changing people's habits from app ownership on a favourite device that just works, to using any number of other devices to log onto a web-based application, feels a bit too much like coin op TV to many people! There's nothing tangible.
LMAO
#1: Cellular technology infrastructure in the U.S. is not there yet & Google has no control over its deployment, nor does Apple.
You know that you can use web-based apps running offline, don't you?! Moreover, we talked about the not so distant future of mobile dev.
I think it was quite an extraordinary demo. I liked the guys (and the girl) and was blown away by the product.
PS: Do you work for Google, or was that a Google inserted ad on MacRumors.com?
No, it was just my personal opinion. I wasn't that much fascinated by a product since the introduction of Mac OS X. I see a huge potential in Google Wave.
Buying trends suggest otherwise, look at all the new app stores
haha this is a bunch of crock. I mean seriously? They way phone companies, and smartphone manufacturers are competing to create their own app stores, it's there to stay and no web apps are going to change that. As much as Google would like to think we're all slaves to their web apps, people's buying trends suggest otherwise.
haha this is a bunch of crock. I mean seriously? They way phone companies, and smartphone manufacturers are competing to create their own app stores, it's there to stay and no web apps are going to change that. As much as Google would like to think we're all slaves to their web apps, people's buying trends suggest otherwise.
They may not understand but they care! An important distinction.
I suspect people also are concerned about cloud security an availability. Again they may not be able to express their concerns in technical detail but many understand the grief that viruses cause or malicious hacking causes.
In any event that issue with Internet access won't go away anytime in the near future. But it is only a small part of why native apps are so important and a good alternative to web apps.
Dave
You are right in one sense, the average user does care about how the app is written. What they do care about is availability of that apps functionality. For many certain apps simply can't stop working if there is no network connection.
I suspect people also are concerned about cloud security an availability. Again they may not be able to express their concerns in technical detail but many understand the grief that viruses cause or malicious hacking causes.
This arguement is rather silly anyways as Apple has clearly demonstrated an ability to deliver a device that can deliver apps with both techniques. This doesn't have to be an either or situation. In a nut shell Apple has got us covered, well accept for flash.
Actually I'm pretty sure people won't change. HTML/Javascript will never become robust enough to support all the apps people might want to have on their device. That is not to say we might not see more web apps, just that some things can't be done well in the web space.
In any event that issue with Internet access won't go away anytime in the near future. But it is only a small part of why native apps are so important and a good alternative to web apps.
Dave
Not if I have anything to say about it.
Dave
Frankly that would lead to a future I wouldn't want to live in. Basically it would mean the end of privacy and personal security.
Dave
As long as you need an internet signal via wifi or other, this will never happen. People want apps that work all the time, not only when you are in a hot spot...
unless they mean webapps that d/l the binary to your device.
instead of this nonsense, google should do what they supposed to, the best search engine; it's not like they can do anything. 2 years ago their idea was they could take over paypal checkout; right, GCO really took off... people only used it when they had the 10 off 10 promo for months.
no wonder they did not set up the much rumored auction site to go after eBay.
instead of this nonsense, google should do what they supposed to, the best search engine; it's not like they can do anything. 2 years ago their idea was they could take over paypal checkout; right, GCO really took off... people only used it when they had the 10 off 10 promo for months.
no wonder they did not set up the much rumored auction site to go after eBay.
I do agree with google. Web app will be the future. However, our technology is so not ready. I still believe native app should and will be the major way to go in this 5 years. Moreover, there are small apps that we don't need web app, such as shopping list and password remember, or some personal notes.
This thread tickles me.
While Cloud computing and storage are going to become more popular, a thin client is not like the full app.
Just the other day I was in a building where the iPhone 3Gs could not get a signal. Had that device been dependent on the Internet for the full app experience, I could not have done anything with it.
I would suggest that those who think everything will be web based, need to consider some things:
- Connectivity. This cannot be stressed enough. Connectivity varies so much around the world.
- Robustness of the applications. Web apps are no where near as robust as desktop apps. Google Docs let you do spreadsheets and word processing for example. However, neither of these comes close to the power of Excel and Word. Same will hold true for Microsoft Office 2010 on the web.
- HTML5 is not the end all solution. It's HTML. It's not a programming language like Assembly, C++, etc. Rather it's Hypertext Markup Language which renders pages -- albeit very capable pages.
I could go on, but hopefully I've illustrated my point in that there are issues with everything being in the Cloud.
Will we get there someday? Who knows. According to projections 30-40 years ago, were were supposed to be paperless by now. Seems to me we haven't arrived there yet in that area.
So we'll see.
While Cloud computing and storage are going to become more popular, a thin client is not like the full app.
Just the other day I was in a building where the iPhone 3Gs could not get a signal. Had that device been dependent on the Internet for the full app experience, I could not have done anything with it.
I would suggest that those who think everything will be web based, need to consider some things:
- Connectivity. This cannot be stressed enough. Connectivity varies so much around the world.
- Robustness of the applications. Web apps are no where near as robust as desktop apps. Google Docs let you do spreadsheets and word processing for example. However, neither of these comes close to the power of Excel and Word. Same will hold true for Microsoft Office 2010 on the web.
- HTML5 is not the end all solution. It's HTML. It's not a programming language like Assembly, C++, etc. Rather it's Hypertext Markup Language which renders pages -- albeit very capable pages.
I could go on, but hopefully I've illustrated my point in that there are issues with everything being in the Cloud.
Will we get there someday? Who knows. According to projections 30-40 years ago, were were supposed to be paperless by now. Seems to me we haven't arrived there yet in that area.
So we'll see.
We just aren't there yet
Quite simply our wireless networks do not yet have the availability, reliability, and performance to allow network applications to compete with local applications in most cases.
Even just accessing the wireless network for data in support of local applications can be problematic.
As our networks improve, we may get to move in that direction but we are definitely not there yet and have a long way to go.
Do I really want my GPS to stop working or my address book to stop working or my music to stop playing in the MANY areas I encounter poor on non existent wireless network connectivity? No way.
Quite simply our wireless networks do not yet have the availability, reliability, and performance to allow network applications to compete with local applications in most cases.
Even just accessing the wireless network for data in support of local applications can be problematic.
As our networks improve, we may get to move in that direction but we are definitely not there yet and have a long way to go.
Do I really want my GPS to stop working or my address book to stop working or my music to stop playing in the MANY areas I encounter poor on non existent wireless network connectivity? No way.
I personally hope web apps never dominate native apps. Besides the obvious dependance on web access, you take ownership of your "stuff" and place it basically in someone elses hands. Not only that, but with all the talk of ISPs capping bandwidth, actually getting to your own data will become crazy expensive. So viewing your own photos for example, or playing a game you already bought (or subscribed to I guess if you play it via the cloud) is going to cost money.
And thats just at your own house. Imagine a mobile scenario (say air travel) where you just want to use a simple office suite, watch a movie, or view pictures. Your going to have to pay to connect to the airports wifi. Then once on the plane (and assuming they get airline wifi finally widespread and running in the air) you will have to pay to connect again at a ridiculous price.
All of this is for stuff that can be done today from your computer. And faster. Even with eventual faster internet speeds most of these apps would run faster on your machine. The only benifit the cloud/web offers is "anywhere" access (anywhere with wifi that is). Big deal. Its not often I want to access these things when i dont have my own laptop anyway. Especially with devices shrinking everyday (can you say netbook?)
Frankly I see this "new" way of computing as nothing more than a way to create web traffic for companies that can monetize off of it, such as google (with a nice side benifit to ISPs who seem to be moving towards a business model of capped internet usage). In the end there is less good than bad for consumers and yet this is being pushed by them as the next best thing to sliced bread
And thats just at your own house. Imagine a mobile scenario (say air travel) where you just want to use a simple office suite, watch a movie, or view pictures. Your going to have to pay to connect to the airports wifi. Then once on the plane (and assuming they get airline wifi finally widespread and running in the air) you will have to pay to connect again at a ridiculous price.
All of this is for stuff that can be done today from your computer. And faster. Even with eventual faster internet speeds most of these apps would run faster on your machine. The only benifit the cloud/web offers is "anywhere" access (anywhere with wifi that is). Big deal. Its not often I want to access these things when i dont have my own laptop anyway. Especially with devices shrinking everyday (can you say netbook?)
Frankly I see this "new" way of computing as nothing more than a way to create web traffic for companies that can monetize off of it, such as google (with a nice side benifit to ISPs who seem to be moving towards a business model of capped internet usage). In the end there is less good than bad for consumers and yet this is being pushed by them as the next best thing to sliced bread
I voted for Native applications. Web based programs (like what windows is doing right now with office) is a HORRIBLE idea. The fact that you need to depend on servers to access something is ridiculous. That is one of the major points for me, if you physically possess the application, the only thing stopping you from using it is if you accidentally delete it or the program needs to be updated to work with the current firmware.
As much as I'd hate to say it, because I really like Google, I look forward to seeing them and Microsoft fail at this. Hell, they might make it somehow work, but the amount of down time that they both will have due to "technical difficulties" will not be worth it.
As much as I'd hate to say it, because I really like Google, I look forward to seeing them and Microsoft fail at this. Hell, they might make it somehow work, but the amount of down time that they both will have due to "technical difficulties" will not be worth it.
I think there are some apps you use every day, and people would rather own those than rent them. And they want them installed locally so they're fast and always available and integrated with the rest of their tools in their own custom way.
If there's a task you don't usually perform, and you want to do once, like converting a picture to GIF (or whatever) you wouldn't mind using some free website to do it, because it's quicker than having to install the app to just do one thing.
Also some apps that are better on the server, such as search and email. Most people can't host their own email because their PC is not on 24 hours a day. As for always available data, Apple has shown that moving everything to the server is overkill for this. Sync is the solution here, where the documents you want always available are on your iDisk and the rest (typically most) are on your hard disk.
As SSDs become more popular over the next year, local apps are going to become lightning fast, and the inadequacies of the network will become more pronounced. This will favor Apple's and Microsoft's model, and go against Google's.
If there's a task you don't usually perform, and you want to do once, like converting a picture to GIF (or whatever) you wouldn't mind using some free website to do it, because it's quicker than having to install the app to just do one thing.
Also some apps that are better on the server, such as search and email. Most people can't host their own email because their PC is not on 24 hours a day. As for always available data, Apple has shown that moving everything to the server is overkill for this. Sync is the solution here, where the documents you want always available are on your iDisk and the rest (typically most) are on your hard disk.
As SSDs become more popular over the next year, local apps are going to become lightning fast, and the inadequacies of the network will become more pronounced. This will favor Apple's and Microsoft's model, and go against Google's.
Connectivity is not an issue. HTML5 applications can be used without an internet connection.
While thats true, most people would be perfectly happy with Google Docs or ThinkFree (which has even more features than Docs).
This is about what the sheep will be doing in the future, not what the sheep are doing now.
True. Then again Google fantasized that their web office was going to be the wave of the future and then OOo 3.x arrived and tens of millions of downloads later I'm not reading commentaries about that fantasy.
Even if OOo3.x isn't at the level of MS Office it shows that 50 Million+ downloads makes it a credible alternative.
With support for OpenType/CCF fonts in OOo 3.2 and even some OS X specific features:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Features#Features_planned_for_OOo_3.2_.28November_2009.29
who in their right mind is going to not use it versus a web app alternative?
Just think of all the infrastructure costs, IT support costs, and upgrade costs that can be saved; there is a real business case for these apps. For those of us in the software industry, we have gone through similar transformations in the past -- this one is no different. In my experience and opinion, this is a no-brainer.
And web apps are one extended failure away from companies going back to native client based apps.
client - if the client works you can function
web - if the web service is working, if the internet connection is working, if your network is working, and if your client is working......
for the web there are two factors over which a client has no control... it CAN work for some organizations, but for many they wont make the switch. There is also the potential for conflict when a host forces you to use a certain browser level etc and it conflicts with you need for an internal app you quickly find issues or are forced into spending money to upgrade when you cant/dont want to... and that maybe due to conflicts with another companies software you have running.
Definately some potential though in the small/medium size business market if companies are primarily only needing to use a brower + office apps and dont run custom web apps etc. Large businesses is a mixed bag, by employee count alone many may not move, but say a retail company which has a high number of in store staff but is much smaller by the way of corporate staff then they could possibly benefit but a large corporate only type organization is more likely to control everything so they can move with the beat of their own drum and not potentially mutliple external companies forcing change.