All "Offline Desktop" Solutions are not Created Equal

Posted on by

TechCrunch is running a story tonight about the Zimbra Desktop (Just saw Read/Write Web has some info as well), which allows Zimbra users to access their Zimbra email and the other parts of the office suite offline in the browser. Is this really the best we can do? Offline applications in a browser? Please tell me it isn’t.

I understand the browser is what people know, and with all the development overhead it takes just to get these apps to work in the browser, maybe I’d try to drag it out also. But the browser as a way to deploy applications is terrible. As a development environment, it’s terrible. To deliver rich experiences, it’s terrible; and now we’re going to hack the code some more to create offline experiences? That sounds like a great use of developer time. Things like being able to drag and drop from the desktop onto your application and having your application behave like a native OS app are only going to make browser based web apps seem more rudimentary.

Stop with the browser. Apollo is here, so you can take your web knowledge and actually apply it to a platform that gives you some power. Try it out, try Flex out, I think you’ll find that once you get going, things are MUCH easier and much more intuitive. But if you’re still wedded to Ajax, that’s fine, Apollo supports that as well.

I was hoping that with Apollo people would realize that there are better ways to create software and Rich Internet Applications than Ajax inside a browser. But it seems that they’re just wasting resources trying to make Ajax work. It won’t, and it’s going to get blown away by better solutions.

[tags]Apollo, Zimbra, Offline Desktop, Rich Internet Applications[/tags]

Related posts:

  1. Why I think Firefox 3′s Offline Feature is a Bad Idea
  2. Apollo Makes Firefox 3′s Offline Feature Irrelevant
  3. Offline Cache Support Added to the Firefox Code
  4. Apollo – Revitalizing the Desktop
  5. PC World Names Apollo an Innovation to Look for in 2007…sort of
  • http://blog.publictivity.com Jason L. Baptiste

    Ryan, I agree with you loud and clear. People may say: “Well, everyone is familiar with a browser”. Yeah, people are familiar with a browser when they are online, that’s what the browser is for, right? People are actually familiar with desktop applications when they’re offline (and even online). Personally, I’ve never been impressed with Zimbra anyway (they’re adoption rate and revenue stats are impressive though). They’re not even a rich internet application in my mind. Since zimbra is open source, have you taken a look under the hood? I am curious how they’re doing what they are doing though. Just my two cents.

    -JLB

  • http://franticindustries.com Stan Schroeder

    Hey Ryan, while I agree that Apollo is a better way to deploy RIAs than the browser, I don’t think this is the case of Apollo vs. the browser vs. something else. There’s an effort to give offline capabilities to online applications on all fronts – Apollo, Firefox 3, as well as other platforms. It not may be a revolution for web apps, but it won’t hurt them, either.

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

    @Jason I haven’t looked under the hood. I’m pretty sure I don’t know enough JavaScript to figure out what is going on, but I’ve definitely been bias against Zimbra for a while, so it’s something I should try and do.

    @Stan You’re absolutely right, and in the end, it comes down to using the best technology for the job. And all of this focus on offline capabilities is a good thing in my mind, because the desktop still has a lot of life left in it. Whether that means building WPF apps, Apollo apps, or using Firefox 3 to take some web applications offline, it really shouldn’t matter. In the end, it’s about the user experience.

  • http://pullur.wordpress.com/ Vijay

    Ryan,

    If you are fine accessing the online application with a browser, Why do you think the same application offline is “terrible” from the browser?

    If for pure web applications you are fine with the browser, why should desktop-web integrared applications be in a native window? I wrote a piece Desktop RIA – Does it need another browser? where I have argued that creating non-browser chrome eventually leads to another browser war (creating another browser).

    What do you mean by “deploying applications in the browser is terrible”? Plug-ins are the only things deployed in the browser. For applications like Zimbra or apps on Dekoh, they are running outside the browser.

    Again, you say “To deliver rich experiences, it’s terrible”. If you like flash for rich experience you can run Flash inside the browser, so why does it make a case for Apollo?

    I had earlier commented on your assumption of only Apollo applications being native OS app. Your assumption is wrong. For example in Dekoh and I suspect in Zimbra too the applications are running outside the browser and have full access/integration with the OS. Only the UI is inside the browser.

    I have no problem if you are a big fan of Apollo. But you are overlooking many things.

    Vijay
    Dekoh

  • http://www.itsfac.com Rob

    I have an adobe.com ID and cannot download the Apollo runtime or SDK. What’s the deal? Is there and alternate source?