Why I think Firefox 3′s Offline Feature is a Bad Idea

Posted on by

I took quite a bit of flack in my last post about Firefox 3, and probably rightly so. I threw up the post right before I went to bed and ended with this line: “The browser is not the platform. The browser is the problem.” Not a very peaceful way to end a post. And justifiably people asked me to clarify what I meant. So here it is. I think having features in a browser to take applications offline is a step in the wrong direction.

People love the browser, and I can understand that. It’s a great tool, and it has served us very well. You could even go so far as to call it the universal platform. But I’ve always maintained that the browser is an old way of thinking. Information is on the web and the idea of a one-size-fits-all solution seems to me like an increasingly odd proposition. We continue to try and get traction out of the browser, and in doing so, I think we’re failing to progress in how we interact with the web.

Is the browser going to go away soon? No, and I don’t want it to. But delivering web applications in a tool that is really just meant for displaying text and images doesn’t seem right. Sure, storing applications on the server? Great. Being able to “browse to” those applications? Perfect. But why do we need a browser with limited functionality to do that? Why shouldn’t we be able to open up the run command, type in a URL, and have a full blown desktop applications at our fingers?

To me, Apollo brings us the closest to this, which is why I think (when used correctly) it makes an “offline mode” in browsers irrelevant. Why are we trying to turn the browser into a desktop when we already have perfectly good desktops? With the browser, we’re getting further away from the power of the desktop and I don’t see any real benefits to doing that. With Apollo, we’re bringing the web down to the desktop and as a result, creating a richer experience. The only reason I don’t love WPF is the cross platform issue. I think WPF makes for FAR richer interfaces than Apollo because I think the things we’re seeing with 3D are very cool and very beneficial. I think between these two technologies, we’re seeing how great the desktop can be. Apollo just comes closer to the “universality” of the web. So why do we need an offline browser when Apollo can do more for us? Flame on folks ;)

I thought that Firefox logo was awesome, and it looks like its’ from Joe Anderson, so I want to make sure he gets credit.

[tags]Apollo, WPF, Firefox 3, browser[/tags]

Related posts:

  1. Apollo Makes Firefox 3′s Offline Feature Irrelevant
  2. Would Google Use Firefox as a Rich Internet Application Platform?
  3. Feeling Out Apollo
  4. What Is Apollo For?
  5. Tara Hunt Starts to Get it – Browsers Are Dead
  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    Can I even say “probably rightly”? That doesn’t seem correct.

  • http://polyGeek.com oz

    First off, I love FireFox (FF) and in general I think that any additional features they can toss in there are welcome. However, adding offline capabilities to FF might not be the best use of resources given that Apollo will offer a much richer offline experience to RIAs than FF could hope for.

    I would rather that the FF developers focus on making the browser more stable and faster.

    I think that when software/web developers decide how to handle a more robust version of their product they will choose to go with Apollo. So even if the offline capabilities of FF are awesome they will likely go unused by many teams.

  • http://www.codeodor.com Sammy Larbi

    This one sounded much more well laidout and well thought out. I can certainly see your point!

    One thing I wonder though, is whether we are trying to turn the web into the desktop, or the desktop into the web.

    Further, I’m not sure what difference any distinction it would make, or if the distinction is even useful.

    In any case, it was much easier to see your point in this post =)

  • http://mattw.mxdj.com Matt Williams

    I was thinking just what Sammy said: “is whether we are trying to turn the web into the desktop, or the desktop into the web.”

    Computers started as being connected to mainframes. Then everything was moved to the desktop. Now everything is on the web. With Apollo, FF3 Offline, it is back to the desktop. Or perhaps these will make it possible to find a happy medium.

  • http://dougr.net doug

    @Ryan,
    I was able to get your point from the first post, and this entry just reinforced my interpretation. I like your thought about but I would actually like to see that go a step further. I would like RIAs to coexist on my file system (my data) giving the feel that I am not browsing for the application nor am I working with the application remotely. I simply want to open the App like any other and work with it like any other. I don’t see this as making the Web a desktop or vis versa, I see this as a creating an integration between the two which is so smooth that the line between is difficult to discern.
    D.

  • http://dougr.net doug

    Sorry, forgot to escape – S/B
    “I like your thought about <Start><Run><RIA> but…”

  • http://redmonk.com/anne/ Anne

    Granted I am religious about preferring the browser over the desktop, but here’s my perspective.

    I prefer extending the browser to extending the web with something like Apollo for two reasons:

    1. it’s a hassle to install/upgrade/maintain desktop apps. The browser eliminates that hassle.

    2. the browser emphasizes information and relationships (via hyperlinks) instead of particular applications. The desktop model of applications + application data puts information and my interaction with that information into silos.

    The most useful application are not necessarily the richest either–so being able to build richer apps doesn’t always make us better off.

    I’m trying to keep an open mind on Apollo, but it hits me the wrong way. I don’t want to turn the browser into a desktop… I want to get rid of my desktop. I use multiple devices to interact with my information and having apps and data trapped on just one causes all sorts of problems.

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    @Sammy and William – I think there really is a happy medium somewhere, but I think it’s more desktop oriented than we are today. The goal is to keep the benefits of the web while still realizing how powerful the desktop is. I’m not sure how that happens though.

    @Doug – the integration is the key. And I think Apollo does that.

    @Anne – I don’t really think Apollo 1.0 is the answer, but it’s a step in the right direction that we can build on. For instance, why can’t Apollo apps run like a web app but keep state on the desktop? If you can use all of your devices with an Apollo-type app, isn’t that better than just a web app?

    The information silo is a good point. I think the key is more and better APIs. Hyperlinks are a cheap way to relate information, but they work. If we get better at linking information through applications, I think that could change how we think about information.

    I think I lost myself there :)

  • http://www.caddistech.com Michael

    I think all of this depends on context of the data that you are accessing. “Rich” doesn’t mean better, it just means different. Is it a more functional experience or does it just look better?

    Context is important when thinking about data. Are we moving images or are we querying large sets of data and mining that into something intuitive?

    Browsers are ideal for text and image based viewing as that is their historical design (think academia). Apollo will allow us desktop access to the file system. Fine. Is this saving to the desktop, grabbing info from the file system, or simply rudimentary storage? I think what we miss in trying to make the web better, is what the context of usage is. Browsers are getting faster, and they are ideal for what they are designed for….text. I like the idea of multi-platform independence of Apollo, but arguably, Firefox runs cross platform on darn near anything that anyone really uses (Mac, Linux, Windows), and it’s ubiquitous. I don’t like the idea of having to deploy an .air file for every application that I want to run in Apollo. I just want to hit the URL, do what I need to do, and be done.

    The question of offline capability comes in running in a disconnected state. Contact managers and content editors all make sense disconnected as you want access to lists or files of information while moving at a rapid pace at 30,000 feet. Many desktop applications have remote synchronization which handles moving the data from point A to B, so Apollo doesn’t really solve a problem that we haven’t already in a desktop environment.

    All the marketing spin and pundits say that RIA’s “leverage the power of the desktop.” What are we leveraging? What critical piece of the desktop will be able to use that MARKEDLY changes how we work and what we can do? I like the idea of Writely and Google Spreadsheets, but I don’t use them. Microsoft Office or OpenOffice are really what I want. Lots of integration, tons of tools, rules, and options, and I’m not constrained to being connected. There’s no reason to put the web on the desktop or the desktop on the web. They’re unique, different, and frankly solve different problems. I don’t see the need for people running their annual reports for their multi-million dollar company via a Flash based application on their mobile phone. They may need to reference some figures that way, but good old HTML handles that nicely.

    Until the country is completely wired for Internet access at broadband speeds and accessible everywhere at an affordable price, universal applications via the web aren’t realistic. I challenge Apollo to do what any application in MS Office does. If we want to write for the desktop, let’s use tried and true programming to do that, let’s not use a sub-standard WebKit HTML engine and try to make it a miracle cure. Safari is a decent browser, but less advanced than FireFox. .NET, C++, and Java have been doing desktop for a long time and good mix of internet enabled apps are a good thing, but so is a separation of concern depending on the context of information/data that we are accessing and manipulating.

    /rant

  • Pingback: tech decentral » links for 2007-02-14

  • http://eokyere.blogspot.com Emmanuel Okyere

    stick to flash and wpf/e press releases ;P

    – eokyere :)

  • http://eokyere.blogspot.com Emmanuel Okyere

    ryan, i got your email; take that last post very lightly though :)

    i think there’s a breed of application out there where clientside persistence increases their utility vastly. the work being done in this space did not just get started; rather than ramble on, i can point to a few resources:

    java db embedded in a browser
    dojo offline toolkit
    user data behavior
    moz/dom storage

    the general whatwg stuff

    i am as excited about apollo and the other web techs coming out just as you are, and i’ve seen the demo use cases and can think of a few where it will fill in brilliantly.

    what is apollo? a runtime. the thick clients you build will run on it.
    what is a browser? a thick client. some of them (like firefox) are extensible.

    who is apollo aimed at? i think initially you, the developer not the ‘customer’.
    who is firefox aimed at? users. but developers can dive into it too.

    those applications i mentioned earlier, however, are currently built to be run in a browser, and it will be ludicrous to think their owners will port them to a product that isn’t even a public beta right away. maybe they will eventually; maybe they’ll never do it.

    if the browser allowed us to persist data easily, clientside, gmail will exploit those capabilities right away; so too the vast other gmail-like applications out there. will those applications be re-written in apollo; maybe. maybe not. but they’ll still be available on firefox/ie. and based on their utility for people, they’ll still enjoy a broad userbase.

    do we miss offline mode in current webapps; maybe. will it be rendered useless if it’s provided, because some other technology provides that and some other useful features? that’s ludicrous.

    cheers,
    – eokyere :)

  • Pingback: Web Design Blog - Offline web applications with Firefox 3

  • Pingback: | ideathink.info