On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:11:19 -0500, AB wrote:
> On 2007-04-29, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:43:19 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Time for Microsoft to Start Worrying
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Behind all this is Google's understanding that the future of software
>>>| lies in Web-based applications.
>>
>> Except the future does *NOT* lay in web-based applications. Perhaps, for a
>> small subset, but most users simply will not or cannot use web-based apps
>> 100% of the time, and if you have to have a traditional application to do
>> the job part of the time, why use two apps when one will work 100% of the
>> time?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think Microsoft is going to take googles lead and attempt
>> to compete with them in this stupid area.
>
> You keep saying this. But it's not totally correct.
>
> If I need one at the office, one on the road and one at home, that's
> *3* things, whether they're the same thing or not, because I need 3
> copies of whatever it is installed. Using web-based drops that to 1.
That's one of its biggest advantages, but as yet, not everyone has the
capability of accessing it. We're getting there, but I think there's some
way to go yet. Uptake of broadband services in the UK is growing rapidly,
but public wifi access lags behind.
>
> For *some* businesses and people, web-based won't work. For various
> reasons, such as privacy, security, paranoia, whatever. But that hardly
> constitutes 100% of the needs of everybody involved. And even those who
> can't/won't use web-based on a regular or frequent basis, there can
> still be times they'll benefit. Such as 2 of the 3 instances I named
> above.
Agreed. Web-based apps will always have their uses. Especially
collaberatively.
>
> I've used Writley exclusively for some things because I can access it
> at work and I can let others access it on a by-document basis. I can
> let others read it only, modify some documents and not others, upload
> files, etc. And I can decide who and when they can do it.
>
> Clearly this can be useful. But not everybody will want to use it. Some
> will use it for some things and not others. Other people may use it
> exclusively. And still others might never use it.
Younger people, those that have grown up with all this seem to be far
happier with it. Not really surprising, I suppose
>
> Control is another issue. There are ways to handle that, too. If I want
> local copies, there's the export feature: to Word, to OOo, as HTML,
> etc. So I don't lose anything unless google loses it, they shut it
> down, they intentionally delete it, they take away the export options,
> etc. I'd believe MS might do any or all of those things. But I haven't
> seen anything that would lead me to believe google would.
>
> You *are* right about one thing, though, albeit for reasons that you
> never name. MS will lose on this level because it isn't possible for
> them to monopolize things like they've done elsewhere. And everybody
> knows they can't compete when they don't have the option to shut
> everybody else out.
If all platforms and OSen can access these apps, I reckon that's one
big thing in their favour, even though I'm not wild about the whole idea
myself. For the general public this is probably going to take off pretty
well.
Any company, whether MS or Google, or someone else, who tried to shut
users out as you describe above would be foolish, since they'd simply lose
business to a rival. To work, web-based apps have *got* to remain
accessible to the users who've invested time and money in their personal
content.
--
Kier
|
|
