The Evolution of Web Applications

Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar I caught a post over on Rock and Roll SEO about RIAs and the revitalized desktop that prompted me to put down my thoughts on the evolution of web applications. As I think about it, there are 5-6 pure web applications that I use every day. There are other that I like to try, but I would consider myself a “power user” of only 5-6. So when I think about how those 5-6 applications could do more for me, the obvious conclusion is the desktop. I’d love to have my email synchronized so I can use it offline, I’d like to be able to download and save my news feeds so I can read through them on trips, ect. In essence, I would love to have those 5-6 applications running as desktop apps for me because it would make my workflow easier.

Then again, the reason that people (myself included) love web applications so much is because I can go to almost any computer, browse to the site, and instantly have access to my data. It isn’t tied to one computer and I don’t have to worry about installing anything. The ubiquity and easy of access for web applications has been a huge driving force in their adoption.

Cucoon So how do we reconcile these? In some ways, they fit perfectly with what I consider the two classes of Rich Internet Applications: Rich Web Applications and Rich Desktop Applications. In order for web applications to make the leap, they are going to have to become more robust and use a different deployment model while keeping the web presence alive. The “power users” may be the only people who will download a desktop client, but in some ways that helps you segment your user base into more valuable distinctions. We’re seeing some of this with web properties adopting widgets that reside on the desktop and give users access to information from their web account. Full Rich Desktop Applications are the next step and as more people become comfortable with the idea of downloading a client to access their data, there will be pressure on the web applications to become richer. This is where technologies like Flash and WPF/E can come along and help make the transition between web and desktop almost invisible for both users and developers. Assets can be reused and the look and feel of the desktop application and the web application will remain the same.

Monarch Butterfly A lot of people are still figuring out where desktop applications fit into the new world of Web 2.0 and it’s something we should all be thinking about as users. I’m willing to trade some of my universal access for features that make my life easier. But I’m not willing to give that access up completely, so the need for a web presence is still very important. Companies that use both models correctly will have a huge head start.

[tags]Web Applications, Web 2.0, Rich Internet Applications[/tags]

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/khoyt Kevin Hoyt

Okay …

I counted and I use three web applications consistently. Two of those however have desktop parts in some fashion or another. Two of them also support mobile interfaces. When I boil it down, it seems that I only use those web applications which give me access to my data when I want it, and how I want it … And I seem to prefer that there’s some value add over just moving to the web.

But!

I use no fewer than six desktop applications daily, or as consistently as I use the aforementioned web applications. I’m particularly specialized, so I suspect that many people use far more than just six desktop applications on a regular basis. Perhaps I’m fanning the flames with this statement, but I think it’s important to remember that the desktop is still the primary destination for most people. It’s death, like COBOL, has been greatly exaggerated. Both (and many others) are still very much alive and well.
http://www.rockandrollseo.com Toby

Hey ryan, i totally agree with you about the “power users” being the ones to utilize a desktop based RIA as of right now. But what do you see in the near future as Mac OS X and Windows Vista create operating systems that are entrenched in the internet. Look at what widgets that come with OS X have done for the common user. People are starting to use desktop RIA’s without even knowing the capabilities of them.

I’m starting to see a trend with the operating systems and apps that common apps will start heading down the RIA path and making desktop RIA’s more common. Remember that it was once only the “power user” that used the “Internet” back in the day. I would love to see if you think it will become a common place to see most applications on a computer running as an RIA.

Oh, and I read your guest article at TechCrunch, quite good!

Toby – Rock and Roll SEO
http://dougr.net doug

Hi Ryan,
Thought provoking post!
I found that in many cases related to the applications which I use on a daily basis, it is easy to make a distinction between Rich Internet Applications and Internet or Desktop applications. However, it seems that a blurry line exists between the desktop applications which I use and Internet applications as in most cases data and information is being ported between the two. I would like to see an increased continuity between Internet and Desktop in that synchronization of data and information between the two currently leaves allot to be desired. I find that I prefer a separation of Internet and desktop-based applications because of the complexity and unreliability of current synchronization processes. For this reason I rarely if ever work off-line and only when I have completed a process do I bring down data and information locally or vis versa. I guess it would be a dreamy thing to have a dynamic process of desktop/internet synchronized applications.
D.
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

@Kevin – you’re right, the desktop is still where a ton of action is. And that’s why it’s good to see more development around it.

@Toby – I think desktop RIAs are going to play a huge part down the road as you said. One of the reasons I liked your post was because I think you nailed how the excitement is all coming together to create real solutions.

@Doug – I think (hope) that’s what Apollo will do. You can’t replace web applications, but I hope we can “bring them down” to the desktop and interact with them in a more advanced way. I’m not sure that’s entirely possible, but I think Apollo gives a mechanism with which to do that. It depends on the developer I suppose.
http://amoldalvi.wordpress.com Amol Dalvi

Ryan – You post is timely for me. I am about to leave my current job and start my own business. Unfortunately I have to turn in my laptop. This has made me think about what data I have on my laptop and what applications I have on my laptop. Data is one thing, but I will now have to buy my own licenses of Word, Excel, PPT, Visio, DVD players, HP Photosmart and other programs I am sure I am forgetting. It has really made me look at the various rich web applications online. I would rather pay a monthly fee to such sites as BackPackIt.com (To Dos, Notes, Calendar) and use Google’s Writely.com and such applications. And I am seriously considering buying one of those Verizon or Sprint cards that lets you connect to the Internet just about anywhere.

One thing I do worry about is this – applications such as Writely.com are just not feature rich enough. I am afraid I will miss my usual shortcut commands in Word and Excel too much in the long run.

Well, I am still thinking through this and haven’t made a decision either way just yet.
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

Hey Amol,

I absolutely hear you and in the near term it seems like there is a trade off between “richness” and “ease of accessibility”. I think that gap is closing. My hope is that we see applications like Writely become very rich and then release an Apollo client as part of a monthly fee. That seems like a win-win for everyone.

Ryan Stewart – Mountaineer Coding

Just an average guy trying to drink above average beer.