No The Desktop Isn’t Dead, But Why?

Posted on by

InfoWorld has an article in which Jeff Raikes, president of Microsoft’s business applications division (responsible for Microsoft Office, so pretty important guy) defends desktop applications. I think it’s kind of funny that stuff like this makes news but it shows the state of the industry. Everyone loves web applications and since Microsoft is lagging behind in that game people love to get the quotes about Microsoft vs. the competition. What I think is being left out is the why of desktop applications. I think Adobe and Microsoft both believe desktop applications are important from both a development perspective and a software deployment/sales question.

Raikes sites Google Gears as proof that even web-centric companies like Google embracing some form of desktop applications. But that’s just the offline story. Creating real desktop applications has more benefits than offline. It’s about branding, it’s about things like file type registration, operating-system drag and drop and being able to leverage the local resources for computing power. There are a variety of benefits that we all need to focus on and which can benefit from all of the innovation on the web. It’s not either or, it’s really a blend of the two that will ultimately benefit customers and users.

Let’s make building desktop applications as easy as building web applications and see what people come up with. Hmmmm…that sounds like a great idea ;) .

[tags]Rich internet applications, desktop development, Microsoft, Adobe[/tags]

Related posts:

  1. The Desktop: Baby, I’m Back
  2. Adobe AIR: Web-Enabled Desktop Development
  3. Tara Hunt Starts to Get it – Browsers Are Dead
  4. Enjoy Vista, the Operating System as You Know it is Dead
  5. Are They Still RIAs if They Are Desktop Applications?

  • Pingback: Ghillie Suits » No The Desktop Isn’t Dead, But Why?

  • http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd John Dowdell

    Thanks for running this piece, Ryan. Any journalism lede with “so-and-so defends X” is immediately suspect in my book… it’s a time-honored hack. Reality is aggregative, not binary either/or.

    I believe applications where code and data lives on a single machine, rather than across the network, has far more life ahead of it than news sources like Infoworld or New York Times do, but it’d be mean to ask that reporter if he’s defending “the impartial voice” against the internet’s two-way conversations…. ;-)

    jd

  • http://paulmwatson.com/journal Paul M. Watson

    Good response. The Microsoft guy is partly right in that it is a combined approach that is best. I don’t think Gears refutes web-apps though or even says that Google is back-tracking.

    BTW I hope this is a misquote: “It’s interesting some our competitors who like to espouse the idea that software is dead,”

    I’m pretty sure Raikes doesn’t think Google ever said “software is dead.”

  • Pingback: The Desktop Isn’t Dead, But Why? « SmoothSpan Blog

  • David

    Let’s face it, the desktop is back in play because MS put it back in play. It was only 10 years ago that MS had a vision of an anywhere/anytime web centric world – including their core products like Office.

    You throw in the anti-trust mess, the competition and the fact that they have to compete on so many fronts, and with so many products, and things just didn’t work out for them. They couldn’t keep up.

    MS is, to a large degree, retreating back to a comfort zone – the desktop is where they feel they can set the agenda, and rule the roost.

    Cheers,

    Davo

  • http://paulmwatson.com/journal Paul M. Watson

    Yet, David, Microsoft hasn’t created anything that it says its competitors are using to “go back to the desktop.” Google Gears, Adobe AIR etc. Where is Microsoft leading the “move” back to desktop?

  • David

    Paul, I didn’t say they were “leading”, I just said that’s where their comfort zone is. I think its more accurate to say they are “retreating” to the desktop.

    They are betting big on WPF – and many corporations are waiting on baited breath to see how quickly Vista gets adopted, and how well it will support that effort.

    It remains to be seen just how this will play out, though.

    Cheers,

    Davo

  • http://paulmwatson.com/journal Paul M. Watson

    I see your point David, thanks. However I’m not sure WPF is the answer and Vista adoption isn’t what they hoped for. I think the rest of the industry has moved on. It has taken what it learnt from online-only and is combining it with previous desktop knowledge, resulting in Google Gears, Adobe AIR, JavaFX etc. Still in their infancy but it isn’t the monolithic strategy of .NET and Avalon.

    Maybe a Microsoft competitor to Adobe AIR, using Silverlight inside, would be a tactic to attempt for them.

  • David

    Hi Paul – yeah, you know, the MS strategy works if everybody stops what they’re doing and buys into it. But Google, Mozilla, Adobe, etc are forging ahead at a frantic pace. I heard recently that Dell are still selling PC’s with XP – corporations (like mine) still aren’t ready to make the switch, for a whole host of reasons.

    I often wonder if MS is late to the game or has this timed to perfection. I have the luxury if knowing some people high up the food chain in corporate America (I, however, remain a pion!) and they’re years away from incorporating the desktop into their solutions – if they decide to at all!

    Then there’s the “it’s Microsoft” effect. Corporations want to know, if they’re all going to be on vista anyway, then why not wait – it’s seen as less risky, from a macro level.

    Just some thoughts.

    Cheers,

    Davo

  • http://www.desknet.ch Francois

    “building desktop apps as easy as building web apps” Hmmmm…, sounds effectively great, I am in ;-)

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

    Hey guys, sorry I missed this thread. @Paul I’ll try and check on that quote. It does seem odd he would say something like that.

    The WPF stuff fascinates me. It doesn’t seem like a ton of people inside MSFT are using it but I hear it has some traction inside of external MSFT-shop companies.

    Is it cool? Definitely! But I don’t agree with the idea as much as I do with AIR (one of the reasons I joined Adobe). I think the Silverlight/Desktop stuff is MUCH more interesting and if they can figure out an easy way to blend those two things then it becomes really exciting.

  • Pingback: Larry Clarkin