Hacker News Reader

I agree that many desktop apps can't be entirely replaced by web-based equivalents. However, if a webapp can provide 80% of the features of a similar desktop app but with a much lower barrier to entry (nothing to install, cross-platform) and additional web-oriented features (collaboration, publishing, Facebook intergration, etc), this webapp can potentially capture a large market share. Google Docs is a good example -- it will never do everything that MS Office can do but it's easy to use and it's certainly good enough for many users. Desktop apps still occupy a niche, but the Web has made this niche much smaller than it used to be.

1) no iPod. -hardware and drivers are a tough science, have you done them, have you certified them? last.fm has a small app that scrobbles, which is a far cry from a desktop app.

what are you describing as a desktop app?

-you can always create a plugin.

2) no graphics card. -there are a number of 3d accelerated plugins out there -http://www.papervision3d.org/

3) no digital camera. -i think flash connects to your digital camera

4) no phone. - flash and voip are being used together

5) no clipboard for anything but text. - link to a web copy of it

6) if I want to email my image from fauxto or flickr to someone via gmail I have to download them it upload it. (Nobody ever mentions this elephant in the web 2.0 living room. How do you get data from one web app to another? An un-started startup perhaps?) - we are using a combination of flash, javascript, and web proxies

7) Half ass interfaces. I really give props to the fauxto guys for pushing the limits but only half ass users like me will ever see it as a worthy replacement for photoshop. -its hard but the pay off is huge because of the reasons you listed above for a web app.

8) No OS integration. I like how Address Book, iPhoto and iCal can talk to Mail.app. that can all work together between web apps.

1) I personally think installing plugins can be more confusing than installing apps. Inexperienced users see, "please install our plugin," and the lump sum of everything they don't know about computers falls on their head like a cartoon piano and they hit the back button. "What's a plugin? Where do I put it? How will I know it worked?" Before flash video became huge the number one question I got from non-tech friends was, "why doesn't this video work in my browser?" I believe that a plugin that isn't as ubiquitous as flash is almost useless.

2) I've heard of papervision. But see #1. I also went to their site and I couldn't get past the landing page in safari. I'll try it in FFX later but I just would have lost every mac user who tried to install someone else's plugin.

3) If flash connects to your digi camera then it can probably connect to an iPod or any other USB device. If that's the case you've got me, I didn't know that.

4) I didn't mean voip I meant phone as a device to sync contacts. But if, like you said, flash talks to USB then you've got me here.

5) I used a bad example. What if I want to edit a song in a web-based mp3 editor and bring it back to anywhere.fm. Unless each web app has access to the other you can't do that w/o a download and an upload. The file system is neutral territory on the desktop. It's the place every app understands. There is no web file system that every web app can access yet. (I actually think that would make a mean startup though.) Even if you're using a combo of flash, js and proxies, you still have to have an interface to the other web-app. Is there a common web-app to web-app interface that the industry has decided on?

7) You're right it is hard. And I really do commend the people who have taken it so far. But most of your answers remind me of the people I see camping who have solar showers, fold out chairs and a battery powered TV. I look at them and say, "why not just go home?" There are a million hacks that get the job done but each one waters down functionality and increases complexity. Almost every answer you've given involves non-browser SW on the desktop. So we're both straddling the desktop and web-based world. We just don't agree where the balance point lies. I think that in most cases existing desktop apps should be connected to web-services that facilitate backups, sharing and collaberation. You tip further toward the web end. I'm sure there is a time and place for both.

You can't do good 3d in a web browser at the moment thats a definite.

Re: But 6) and 8): at the current stage there hasn't been a lot of interaction between web apps. There isn't a reason why this can't happen. I'm not sure about images in gmail (why not send a link?) but applications like fauxto can get your images from links. All these i-products are made by one company, a web company can make its programs just as intertwined. As a parallel to your example I think a fair number of web applications work with google calendar.

Re: But 1-4: If your company wants to work at the stage people get data off their devices then a web startup makes no sense. Once they've done that though - the first things they want to do is share it. Thats why the internet is huge, there are other people on it.

Good 3D in the browser should be coming soon. Look up Quake Zero -- a browser version of Quake 3 -- still years behind what we can do on the desktop now, but not that far.

Great 3d, no. But check out unity 3d, which is a very small plugin, and quite impressive for what it is:

http://unity3d.com/

The Firefox guys are working on <canvas3d>.

6) if I want to email my image from fauxto or flickr to someone via gmail I have to download them it upload it. (Nobody ever mentions this elephant in the web 2.0 living room. How do you get data from one web app to another? An un-started startup perhaps?)

The main issue, I think, is privacy and authentication. The only reason I can't have gmail directly slurp my images from facebook is that Google isn't on my friend's list. Though the last time I tried to upload an image with facebook, the interface didn't let me use a hyperlink. That's not a limitation of the internet, that's just a sucky interface.

So the issue does get talked about, just not in those terms specifically.

Re: iPhone and GMail - There's no fundamental reason your iPhone couldn't sync with GMail. GMail imports and exports contact using CSV. Download / upload the CSV via Safari, and if your iPhone could parse the CSV, you're good. In fact, someone should write an iPhone app to do just that.

Yeah, but what about syncing? I am ALWAYS adding a contact to my phone then another to my email, then I'm syncing them. I can't just wipe everything out on one end w/a csv upload. Really this is something I believe should happen invisibly.

Syncing is very important and I am working on a downloable mobile app that will sync your mobile and web life as well as your friends into one.