berniedolan
Do we really need offline web applications?
April 04, 2007
This post over at the 37 Signals blog raises an interesting question: Has there been too much hype lately surrounding the idea of "offline" web applications? The basic point of the post is that in an increasingly connected world, why do we need to solve the problem of the occasionally connected client? The writer (David) expresses the opinion that besides a few rare places where there are "pockets of dark holes", the only place we REALLY don't have access is on a plane. Ironically, I also caught this post the next day on Slashdot declaring that US Airlines is planning to offer Wi-Fi service on their flights by next year -- lol.
At any rate, it's a good question, and based on the 190+ comments generated by the post, a controversial one. So do you think this is really a problem that needs to be solved? Adobe does. And kudos to them for facing the issue head-on with Apollo.
Comments (4) | Related Categories: AIR
Apr 4, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Right now I have a client that needs access to the data from their site when they are in very rural areas with no internet connection (they even have Sprint cards and still can't get access in some areas).<br /><br />I think it is easy for people who spend all of their time in major cities to forget that the internet cannot yet be reached from everyone on Earth.<br /><br />I am certainly looking forward to seeing what Apollo can do (for now it looks like we will import data into a local MS Access database).
Apr 5, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Well connected or not, there's a case to be made for deeper desktop integration... <br /><br />- Ever close your Pandora or Finetune tab by accident in the middle of your favorite song?<br /><br />- Ever want to drag and drop files in and out of your killer Web 2.0 application onto the desktop?<br /><br />- Wouldn't it be nice if that great new Web 2.0 application could give your alerts without having to be "open" at all?<br /><br />Given the existing fragmentation in the browser's implementation of HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, is it really right to ask them to provide this functionality? Should a technology originally designed to display scientific documents be asked to go this far?<br /><br />Okay, so maybe the desktop has its place after all, but then how do you build a desktop presence for your Web 2.0 application? Do you use Java (also fairly fragmented)? Create platform specific binaries? <br /><br />What does that require you to learn? Swing? .NET? Cocoa? Did you just see all those hours of time mastering web technologies flash before your eyes? Why shouldn't you be able to use your existing skills to augment your killer web application?<br /><br />Introducing Apollo. More than just offline.<br /><br />Two cents,<br />Kevin
Apr 10, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Wait a sec, he is not saying that offline access doesn't potentially solve a problem, just that it has been getting an undue amount of high profile attention. I have to completely agree on that point. This is a niche issue...most applications are fine being 100% online apps and many more desktop apps are better served as online apps than otherwise (for example, places like Google Docs or Zoho offer excellent alternatives to bloated and clunky desktop apps whose main offline functionality applies to a limited subset of "power users").<br /><br />Nonetheless, at this point my feeling is that there is a small set of problems that *can be* solved by Apollo for an even smaller subset of applications that have these problems. The other question then is, does Apollo actually solve them? At this point, given what I have seen, unfortunately my answer is no...though I have higher hopes for the non-alpha versions.
Apr 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I have to agree with Kevin... it doesn't impress that much to have offline applications available. But I love that we can now get web applications running outside of the browser, as a part of the "normal" operating system. I think it brings the power of desktop apps within reach of web developers.