Web 2.0 Poll

[Renegade]

I'm vehemently in the "Web 2.0 is BS" camp. But I'm curious at to what others here think (and more importantly... DO).

I post in forums and do some work in a browser like posting into the Bug Tracker, etc. But other than that, I really NEED the power of a client program. For me, the whole Web 2.0 thing is total BS. I think fast and work fast. A browser just can't keep up enough for me to take it seriously.

But I'd like to hear how others feel on the topic and how they work. I'm not your average user, so what works for me isn't going to be what works for everyone else.

[mitzevo]

I don't think it's total bs.. it's cool that you can do a lot with just a web browser but ofcourse you still need a desktop/your system to do a lot of stuff.. It's just conveniant, say, to be able to do a lot from within a web browser. 

[steeladept]

I really do think it is bad, and it isn't anywhere near a reality - YET.  However, I think it is coming and we won't easily be able to avoid it.  There are too many advantages to corporations that build the software, and it takes the PC closer to an appliance - a very complex and flexible one, but appliance none the less.  When you can setup a commodity machine with a generic setup and forget about it, because it just works - that is what most people want out of their machine, and the Web 2.0 idea is another step closer to it.

[Lashiec]

I've ranted enough in other threads, so I'll only say desktop + web apps

[Renegade]

+1 for the rants!

I think that in a few years we'll see more useful things, but the network bandwidth issue will remain for a very long time, making certain kinds of operations simply too intensive. e.g. Audio & video editing. They're simply extremely intense, especially with the higher resolutions today. HD DVD & Blu-ray will make things even tougher. That's a VERY long way off - beyond the forseeable future.

Even a lot of the text editing that I do is too intense for Web 2.0. I've got 100 file open and want to do a regular expression search & replace... CPU intense and bandwidth intense if my files are large. That's a pretty normal operation for a lot of what I end up doing on a daily basis.

Web based operating systems? HAHAHAHAHAHA~! Sorry - I don't smoke crack!

[mitzevo]

Yeah the web based operating systems are a bit of a joke..

[f0dder]

The "technologies" of web2.0 are nice enough, allowing browser-based stuff to be a bit more interactive, refreshing without doing a full page reload, and preeeeetty stripes

I think the "everything will run in a browser" idea is ludicrous though. There's reasons we moved away from dumb terminals and mainframes... But sure, some tasks run fine in a browser, and we'll probably be seeing more of those, especially for casual use stuff - most people don't need all the features office offers, for instance.

[Toolus]

I agree with the other people here. Some of the stuff you can do with this technology is really cool and would probably be just fine for most average users but I think most power users are going to need a desktop to do most of their work.

[vradmilovic]

As a desktop developer I might be biased, but I'm still trying hard to understand whole web 2.0 buzz. We can "thank" to major factor in the industry for most imaginative ideas - Google. Personally, I'm not thrilled with Microsoft and it's philosophy, but microISV are greatest victims in the war between those two.

Of course, I can see the advantages of web services for meaningful purposes (web 1.0 or web 2.0, whatever), but sometimes ideas go too far in my opinion. I don't want to install an desktop application just to order food, find a rent-a-car or a hotel room, but I definitely don't want to use a third-party (and untrusted, should I say) web service for keeping my confidential personal or business data. Google already knows my searches, sites I visit, part of e-mails and feeds that I read (my latest stumble, ahhh); should I now let them know about visitors at my web site, letters I write, appointments and spreadsheet calculations? What's next? Google Budget? No, thank you. I'm not a paranoid, otherwise I would not use even G from Google, but line must be drawn somewhere.

I'm biased, alright, because Google attacks towards Microsoft can well be interpreted as attacks towards our company. First, Google buys Urchin (previously a high-end and expensive product) and lets anyone use it (Google Analytics) for free, which directly competes with our product Web Log Storming. And second, their Calendar competes with our Agenda At Once. It's alright, I'm still not hating, but if they create web based label designer, I will be really P.O'd...

OK, now this became Google rant instead of Web 2.0 rant, but you got a message anyway. As a conclusion: I don't think that whole this buzz is generally a good thing, but I don't think that it will fall down miserably anytime soon - Web 2.0 can have a meaningful target, and, also, very powerful players are behind it. Still, a vote for a "joke/hype/bubble/fad".

[mikiem]

I agree with steeladept -- some of the advantages are overwhelming... If nothing else, face it, there are some users who shouldn't have full access to a PC. 

You can't expect to do everything -- I doubt if any video editor would even consider it unless you're talking some super powerful in-house system -- but stuff along the lines of Notepad with a spell checker, sure beats some of the stuff I've seen, like composing text in a spreadsheet. 

Because of that I doubt it'll ever go completely away, but I think: "Will it make money?" is the question to ask. If it's not profitable for Google to forgo licensing fees then they won't continue -- no one will unless they've got a huge ax to grind like the dude who bought Sun Office. You get some $ from advert fees, & in that way it's side-stepping bad vibes from ad/spy-ware, but will it be enough & will folks put up with it?

I also wonder how long it'll be before everything's blocked? How many folks install & run Java in their browser anymore? How many even have JavaScript fully enabled? CA AV software free to RR users by default makes it hard to do more than view a site with text & pix today. My wife for one is NOT going to go into the firewall settings and start tweaking -- nor are most people I know.

[wasker]

I like that web apps became richer now, but c'mon, most of them is just another way to get moneys from VCs while being on a hype.

[housetier]

It's not there yet, but soon it will be. I am thinking of free localization services based on free user created maps under CC. "web 2.0" will be the means for people to create what they really want, and not what big news corps want to sell.

[iphigenie]

It also depends how you define web2.0
Web 2.0 covers several things - from a new "fad" in design style to the asynchronous way of doing things in the browser (not needing to reload the page) to the use of style sheets and standards, to the extensive use of user interaction and contribution, to the new "rich internet applications" technologies like flex, silverlight etc.

All of these mean web2.0 to some people

Since it seems we are talking mostly about RIAs and whether they will
* turn out to be a fad and go away
* stay and take over the world
* become part of a mix

I think the obvious idea is that they will certainly become part of a mix - and might take over more than you think

The advantages they have to the user are
- access the same thing from any computer, independent of OS, including (over time) PDAs and mobile phones
- moving some of the processing cost to the server, i.e. you dont need as powerful a PC
- cost, no need to shell up £400 up front and no need to pay for software you might only need once in a while
- convenience, no need to install software that you might only need once in a while
- their server is more likely to be backed up and safe than your typical computer

The disadvantages to the user are
- you have to be online, should you end up stuck with no connection you cant do a thing
- you dont have as much control over your data/tools
- typically slower
- less choice than in desktop apps
- the cost of developing and making these tools is higher so they will typically be fee based or advertising based, and there wont be the equivalent of the simple-tool-that-does-one-thing-well long term

I tend to prefer offline, desktop tools for the speed, responsiveness. But the biggest problem is cost and the hassle if you work on multiple PCs (i have a laptop at work, a home desktop and a private laptop...) - paying n licenses, sync'ing.

To me the killer apps will be the ones who are online, so you can access them from anywhere, but have some sort of offline component, so you can mirror to your main computer or PDA should you have to be offline (on a plane, train, at a friends house). All within the tool.

[wmain]

I rarely work from my home base where my main computer is sutuated. I find web 2.0 very convenient for that reason. I can do most things either remotely or using web apps.

I use the free logmein and Hamachi for working remotely.

I have all of my documents  and spreadsheets up on Google. If I need to I'll save the file as a word or excel file, work on it, then upload it back to google. Most edits I can do in the google apps, it's rare that i actually need the full power of office or openoffice.

All of my various email addresses forward to my one gmail account. If I need to transfer a file quickly I'll create a gmail message, attach the file then save it. Then when I get to my destination I'll open the message, retrieve the attachment then delete the saved message.

[f0dder]

Just remember that when deleting something on gmail, it's not really deleted, and still being used for google's database indexing.