Walter,

Again I don't understand what you're saying. On the one hand you talk about offline data on phones, tables etc. and yet you discount the same for Web applications? Do you realize that you have most of the same PERSISTANT storage mechanisms in browsers that you have in native applications? You may not have FoxPro (as if that mattered), but you do have local storage in a variety of ways that can be used to run without a connection in a browser. That includes loading pages when there is no connection (via manifest) and storing data in local storage that persists across browser sessions. So what do you think is different? In fact most mobile platforms use the same exact local stores to hold the data with the same local requirements.

There's a time and place for desktop applications. Development is one of them. Graphics design, heavy duty data entry, hardware interfacing things are a few others. But for a very large percentage of applications these are not issues that matter (data entry maybe but that can be managed on the Web too albeit with some extra effort).

As to connectivity I don't know any company that I've worked in the last 20 years where their enterprise data is managed locally in any way. Most don't even do anything like snapshots for offline data. They assume they are connected whether it's on their laptop when at the office, on their phone, or at a workstation. And guess what they use all of those to access the same application.


You're right that I may be biased towards Web development, but at the same time I'm really baffled by this old school thinking that you can't trust the network, when the majority of businesses are based around that very promise.

So here's what I want to know - what exactly do you do with data if it's not networked? You shuffle snapshots down to every machine, then sync up? Ok, I get that but that can be done online as well. What the heck am I missing that makes you think you have to have a desktop app? I've given a few concrete examples in this thread. Let's see one of your's - BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative here but I would like to understand where you're coming from because honestly I don't get it (which of course is nothing new with us based on past discussions which is fine :-))

+++ Rick ---

>Rick, you are one of the most respected people arround here, but here I have to firmly disagree with you..
>
>
>>>It seems you are mixing phone and web apps, but for local data on a phone: Not a chance. The phone is not available that can hold and manage even a basic CRM set of business data.
>>
>>What kinds of applications are you building that you have huge local data sets on a desktop/laptop machine? I can't remember the last time I built even a desktop app that had local data sets other than small snapshots. Everything else lives on central servers. That can be cloud storage, a web app that runs completely over the Web or internal network, or something as simple as a central SQL server - regardless the data is not local.
>
>Here is exactly where the flaw is. Connectlivity is an issue, up here in europe, but also in NA. If you are in concrete buildings your connection to the internet is highly unreliable. Having applications (or apps) that store data locally, you can work with it without the internet, just I could lookup my contact details in my Phone without being connected. I can run through my emails without being connected. I can write an email or tekst message without being connected. I view videos and listen to music without being connected. I can work on an excell sheet, write a word document and read PDFs without being connected. More over, I would be broke if I only could do software development with tools that require internet connection. As far as development goes, EVERYTHING is local, including the SQL server, so that I can carry the whole development environment on my laptop. That's ALL local data.
>
>Those are real business applications that are implemented with native Apps. I'm sure you're right that there is progress on development tools for the webapp, but for a lot of things it just does not fit because there is a dependency on quick and reliable access to the data.
>
>
>>Unless you build apps for a single individual that carries their business around on a laptop, I don't know anyone or any business who does that. They get on the network to connect to their data. There may be apps that have stuff local, but I would say that's the exception not the rule by a long shot. Maybe you're specializing in a line of business that does this?
>
>Hmmm, let me see... Microsoft does. Ever heard of Microsoft Office ? Seriously, our business is software development and we carry around laptops that are installed with a full development and demonstration environment. Next week, I'm in Lisbon on a conference not knowing whether we have internet access. I'll be demonstrating our software there, but I would also be able to quickly modify functionality or fix bug on the spot if need be. Using source control will enable me to upload / download changes whenever I get connectivity.
>
>People are using disconnected data all the time. Their email and contact details are stored locally, They will have documents on their laptops which they could upload and download from/to other sources. Video, music, Office documents, PDFs, development tools and god knows what kind of custom applications (think of Insurance salesmen, workers, even networking guys connecting your phonelines and internet will have specialized applications on their laptops that do or do not need direct connectivity).
>
>Yes, there is a lot more possible on the web than it was 10 years ago, but it does not mean that the desktop application is dead. That is ridiculous. Even for the type of business applications you're aiming at: If it needs to connect with local hardware things become awfully more complicated than necessary with a webapp type of solution.
>
>>Maybe you're having a hard time of letting go of the 90's :-)
>
>I think Rick, your mind-set is too much focussed on certain types of applications where the web makes sense. However it seems you're blind for the arguments that there are large number of types of applications that are written by all kinds of developers that simply do not run through the web.
>
>I remember there was an award winning VFP application a long time ago, about tuning engines of race cars. Why on earth do you even want to attempt to turn that into a web app?
>
>Walter,
>
>>
>>+++ Rick ---
>>
>>>It seems you are mixing phone and web apps, but for local data on a phone: Not a chance. The phone is not available that can hold and manage even a basic CRM set of business data.
>>>
>>>You can call bs, but you are alone in thinking that phone connectivity is rarely an issue. On the contrary, the WSJ recently reported that a majority of Fortune 500 execs have to carry 2 or 3 phones from different brands just to be sure of connectivity.
>>>
>>>And guess what also? The number one phone in 2014 for business executives was, according to the WSJ, the Blackberry Bold. This is not sales, of course, but usage. Of the people that had 2 or 3 phones., one of them was almost always a Blackberry Bold. That was the last phone that had at least some business capabilities.
>>>
>>>In a major metropolitan area like Chicago, 4G coverage is inconsistant and 3G coverage has hundreds of dead zones. And even with a connection, speed will vary greatly. I travel for business, and on any given business trip there is a lot of unconnected time. Leave Chicago on an airplane to upstate New York. Drive from the airport 2 hours to your destination. You will have encountered almost no connectivity that entire time.
>>>
>>>I am not sure what there is to disagree with. The problem remains that there does not exist a phone today that can manage local data, and for businesses that is essential. You seem to be saying local data is not a big deal, and not required much anyway. I doubt I could find any business executives who agree.
>>>
>>>>There's a big difference between a read-only app and a full desktop app with data entry features. Most of the 'hard' stuff for mobile has to do with data entry and managing that in a way that is usable which is difficult. You're not going to use your phone for heavy data entry.
>>>>
>>>>For reporting type of applications, mobile works fine in mobile applications. You *can* have local data in a Web app - localstorage and the various Web db engines support that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>To me this is sort of the same debate we had in the 80's/90's when we moved from a single computer to a computer on a network. No computer is an island anymore and even enterprise apps often don't work 'offline' without a network connection because the data is stored on a central SQL server typically. You can take a workable snapshot, but that works regardless of whether you use a desktop app or a web app.
>>>>
>>>>There are very few places these where you don't actually have connectivity anymore and even those are going away.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not saying that there isn't a place for local data. Maybe there are some apps that REALLY, REALLY need that but I honestly think that there's not much of that around anymore.
>>>>
>>>>>The idea that everyone will always be connected and at a good speed is a fallacy. That alone crashes most of your points. Whoops, momentary connection problems, goodbye business. I have to carry a phone and tablet, both with data connections, as well as external USB data connections in order to be reasonably sure of anytime solid Internet access.
>>>>
>>>>I call bs on that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lots of companies do just that. First service is reliable enough these days for there barely to be a connection issue. Second like I said you can take data offline in a Web app - no different than you can in a desktop app. There's no such thing as a fully disconnected business application these days. Even if you are running a desktop app you are typically connected to a network to get your data and the only way you get to work offline is by bringing snapshots down to work off locally and then presumably sync back up. People use email and contact lists synced from the cloud all the time when there is no connection - it's not rocket science.
>>>>
>>>>The fallacy is that there are things you can only do in desktop applications - and in most cases that's simply not true. There are very few use cases that absolutely require desktop applications and most organizations have already recognized that fact. That is why there are very few development tool vendors push any sort of desktop development platform anymore. Even Microsoft has pretty much thrown in the towel (even though they're still trying with the misguided WinRT platform that's not going anywhere for now - although that may change with Windows 10 and the improved capabilities) - which to me is most surprising given that they have the most to gain from rich development on top of Windows.
>>>>
>>>>And just for the record I'm not advocating ditching the computer. We still need computers for doing real work especially when it comes to data entry and content creation. All I'm suggesting is that we have the technology to do just about anything that you can do on the desktop - including local data - using HTML interfaces. There's nothing special about being able to offline data in a desktop app.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>+++ Rick ---
>>>>
>>>>>As usual your points are well thought out. Nonetheless I have to mildly disagree with a couple if them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Users expect phone apps to be as powerful as desktop apps, not a subset of the desktop app. And given that a phone user may not always be able to be connected, any business app with key components like contacts and CRM has to be able to load local data. In fact the proof of that is that Companionlink has as customers almost every big company. What am I to do on the plane when I need to find Fred's address?
>>>>>
>>>>>The idea that everyone will always be connected and at a good speed is a fallacy. That alone crashes most of your points. Whoops, momentary connection problems, goodbye business. I have to carry a phone and tablet, both with data connections, as well as external USB data connections in order to be reasonably sure of anytime solid Internet access.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given users expectations, connections, and the lack of abilities on today's consumer oriented phones, you still have today the dichotomy of phones and desktops, and no way for a business oriented CRM system to easily manage both.
>>>>>
>>>>>None of the large CRM companies have found a way to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tuvia
>>>>>
>>>>>p.s. we are constantly flooded with requests for LAN type desktop apps. Those outweigh the web type app requests easily 3 to 1. Not many factories are going to build a browser based app to manage the machinery and production, although along your lines they may have web apps that can access reporting or summary type data. Most accounting systems are not web based. And web based apps have no way to do heads down data entry. Try entering insurance claims that way. We have a world where the developers are often disconnected from the needs of the business world.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hear those arguments all the time and the reality is if you design an online application properly and don't try to display 5000 records on a form all at once, you can easily manage large amounts of data. Just because you have a massive db on the backend doesn't mean you have to see it all at once on the client. And even if you must (which I can guarantee you is NEVER a wise choice desktop app or otherwise) there are ways to provide continuous scrolling to make the data behave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you build apps that run entirely of a local network you might have a leg to stand on, but few people do that today. And if you do a Web/mobile app will be able to take advantage of that same fast connection to provide fast data access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody wants a phone app to replace a desktop app either. A phone app is a subset of a full application, where some of hte features are easily accessible on the phone while you're out and about. That's usually report and lookup based data with some basic data entry and updates usually. You can do more but it's obviously tedious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously you can't build a phone app that provides the same functionality as a full screen desktop app, but that's also not the point. The point is that you can provide vital data access to some feeatures that make sense to see while you're out (and most of those are not data entry focused), and then also provide a larger and more powerful interface when you're back at the office in front of a large screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+++ Rick ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>IMO none of this solves the biggest problem with phones - they are not made capable of handling even a basic business app, and mobile web apps are great but not always practical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Allow me to give a simple example. This tech info comes from Companionlink, a company which specializes in connectors between phone apps and desktop CRM's. Although what I am about to say I knew prior to speaking with them, they lend weight for the skeptics that may abound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Originally Blackberry phones were designed for business. Blackberry thought that the video and music and emerging social networking would be a cool addition, but hardly the main purpose of a smartphone. Then of course the exact opposite came true; phone sales are almost exclusively for what I call the teeny-bopper junk. So long Blackberry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What made a phone business friendly? Let's take a look at a simple area - contacts. Android phones are designed to have your personal contacts, maybe up to a couple hundred (Google fact stated to Companionlink). After that, just doing a simple search to call somebody can be frustrating. But the browser is "fast." they advertise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A business oriented smartphone, i.e. the former Blackberry could handle 10-20,000 contacts without breaking a sweat. Most businessmen I knew then had at least 5000 contacts and sync's them with their office CRM. There literally is no phone device that can handle this most simple of business tasks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ahah, you say! Disconnected apps? Phooeey! Just use the phone's browser to connect to your office's CRM and operate the CRM remotely from your phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rarely practical with any kind of substabtial CRM. The performance and variety of data make operating in a browser frustrating. In fact, Companionlink has capitalized on that and does a huge and booming business syncing to everything from Outlook on up to real CRM's. Large companies, busy businessmen, all need quick and easy access to data -- not possible via a phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All of this describes the main problem of all software in our time: the conclict between personal "teeny-bopper" type use and serious professional use. MS cannot decide, so they try and have both and often fail. Apple dumped the business end and stuck with those wanting an "iLife". Samsung is desparately trying to be like Apple. Linux has a lot of capabilities for the business/professional side, but has yet to achieve mainstream desktop acceptance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A few years ago a rep from MS spoke at Southwest Fox previewing Windows 8. One of the SWF speakers actually walked out on her speech, but I asked her "what about business apps?" You see, she spent the entire time talking about app stores and sharing recipes. She initially ducked my question, but when I persisted she admitted MS had nothing for business in W8. She desparagingly called them "oh yeah, those line of business applications" and said stick with W7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet when MS releases server products, they try and tout the business capabilities -- except when they mess up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So all this mobile/phone app talk ignores the underlying problem of how to address the teeny-boppers and the professionals alike. First the pendulum swung one way, towards business, now it has swung back, who knows if it will swing again, or how many times before we achieve a resolution to the problem of serving two vary diverse groups of people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are a number of reasons for the more and 'boring' nature of Phone announcements. We're coming out of the 'discovery' phase into the 'mainstream' phase. Phones have been around long enough that few people think of it as something exciting or revolutionary (even though it surely is). A lot of the the low hanging fruit for productivity have been picked and now we're in consolidation and optimization modes - incremental improvements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think this likely means there'll be all sort of little UI feature twiddling which if anything will make the fragmentation between platforms even worse as each vendor tries to set themselves apart of 'usability'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As you point out this could be to the advantage of the Web as the unifying platform. Nobody *wants* to build 3 or 4 apps and but if you do native that's exactly what you have to do. Web apps don't have to deal with this, but then again there's also the expectation to deliver similar UI experience and integration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Google is being smart about this actually - they're actually building their UI platform both as a native and as an HTML platform (Material Design) so you can end up with the same experience in both. Even the paradigms used in markup/layout are similar so it's easy to switch between them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think something like this will be where we're headed. There will be UI frameworks that are more high level than the specific phone platforms. More sophisticated then the crude frameworks we have today like Bootstrap that still leave most customization to the user.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There's also a big misconception of who needs an app vs who is served just fine with a Mobile Web app. Consumer facing mainstream apps certainly are candidates for native apps today, but there's no reason for a business application used in-house to be in an app store as a native app. In fact that's asking for extra mainteance overhead with almost no benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Like I set earlier in the thread - lots of things in the air that have the potential to really shake things up in the next year or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>+++ Rick ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ryan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the heads up - did not show up on my radar screen!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Took some time to think about it, and came up with a quite opposite view. All what follows is a personal interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Last month Apple announced a huge increase of iPhone 6 sales on the Asian markets. So far the market deal was clear: iPhone for the upper end, Android for the lower end, with ambitions upwards. 2 years ago, Android was supposed to kick Apple out of the market like Microsoft once did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Now Google sees the opposite scenario happen, and realizes that consumers have no compelling reason for buying an Android, except price - and price has never been a compelling reason, just a non-choice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So Google tries to clone what made Apple's success: keynotes with wahoo effect (or still learning to on the video … 'do you want to see it live?' - question never asked in an Apple presentation, just because there is no need to ask). Did you notice that the 2 co-presenters are probably Asians, as the targeted audience?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>'Now on Tap' is an attempt to attract consumers, and tie up app developers into the Android eco-system.
>>>>>>>>>This is fine for consumer apps, what is the impact for business apps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There are 2 main differences between consumer and business apps: features and numbers.
>>>>>>>>>- features: today all consumers around the world tend to behave the same (globalization) and, consequently, expect the same features: one app can target billions of people; this provides enough momentum ($) to develop one application per platform: mw, ga and ai*.
>>>>>>>>>Conversely, businesses on different markets (activity and country) have varying needs; moreover, some companies seek differential advantages in their IT - they don't want to share features with their competitors.
>>>>>>>>>- numbers: this feature patchwork narrows the number of target companies and users for a given app, except very broad, horizontal and narrow functions (like CRM, time tracking etc.) - too little $ to develop platform-specific ERPs at an affordable cost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Economically, business apps require a standard client environment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This has been the only reason why Windows has become standard and nearly a monopoly: because Windows specs and APIs were public, business app tools came on windows (dBase contributing a lot), then business apps, then the huge market of business users, and finally the consumer market.
>>>>>>>>>Anyone over 50 can remember this clearly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is there any chance that this scenario replays?
>>>>>>>>>Certainly no, because the mobile consumer (B2C) market has emerged before the business (B2B) market, just the opposite of what happened 30 years ago. And consumers are sensitive to fashion and marketing, not standards, just because standards don't provide consumer any benefit, not even a significant cost reduction.
>>>>>>>>>And because the consumer market is so huge that the app makers can develop and maintain as many version as the number of platforms.
>>>>>>>>>In some sense, platforms fragmentation provide the bigger players an even higher barrier of entry against new players - so, and this is a paradox, companies that are established on the consumer market (like Facebook and others) do have a objective interest in addressing a variety of platforms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So everything seems to indicate that the mobile device market will remain fragmented, and there will be no chance to see once a (free) standard client environment except the browser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's why business apps have no other choice than move to the browser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PS: as business app developers, we've always believed that our needs were prominent on the IT market. This is longer been true since roughly 2005: IT are now dedicated to the consumer market, and every announcement should be considered in this perspective.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All what precedes is a personal interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thierry, something else to consider:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What Google just announced at its IO conference is a bombshell for the future of the company. For years the search giant has witnessed the chipping away of its core product — search — due to the rise of mobile applications and their siloed-off experiences. Users are engaging more and more with programs that have no attachment or often need for search on the broad web, and as a result Google's position as the owner of our habits, interests, and needs on the internet has looked increasingly at risk....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[Today] the company demoed a new feature of its Android OS which allows its Now service (a dashboard of notifications focused on your life and interests) to plug in as a layer that essentially hovers above any app running on your phone or tablet. Activated by the home button, it's always there. This means that you can get contextual search information around almost anything you're doing, provided there is text and data that Google can pull from the app itself. And the best part is that developers won't have to make any changes to their existing software to allow the new service — dubbed Now on Tap — to bring search and context into the user's view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-28/what-google-just-announced-is-a-bombshell
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Another acknowledgement of the increasing footprint of non-browser apps on devices, this time by the producer of the dominant device OS. Apart from search, this will make it easier for all sorts of different apps to interact without their developers having to program (or customers pay for) a big Rube Goldberg exercise: exactly the sort of "black boxing" that IT needs to be delivering for its customers. I realize the purpose is to keep Google in the driver's seat but this is an example of vendor and customer interests being aligned, just like Microsoft in the 1990s.