[UFO Chicago] "Microsoft is dead"

[Neil R. Ormos]

Brian Sobolak wrote:
> sten wrote:

>> Not to get all ESR, but if we hand over control
>> of all our data to Google, Yahoo, and the other
>> "web 2.0" players, then aren't we completely
>> screwed?  What if Google burps and Brian's
>> spreadsheet goes into the bitbucket? How is
>> having your data locked away in Google's colos
>> any better than having it in a proprietary MS
>> Office-only format?

> That's a fair argument, and one I've considered
> and decided to make peace with.

> The key difference was when I noticed Gmail
> allowed POP access to your email stored on their
> servers.  This was substantially different from
> my experiences with most other "free" email
> services, and one that made feel comfortable
> that I could retrieve my data if this seemed
> like a possibility.

A few comments on several prior posts in this
thread, in no particular order:

1.  IMO, Jordan has done a great job of
     elaborating and supporting his position that
     Web 2.0 is an amorphous moving target, and its
     proponents seem to adopt anything that's "hot"
     regardless of whether the technology or its
     underlying concept predates Web 2.0.  In
     essence, the Web 2.0 people have reversed the
     causality relationship.  Instead of Web 2.0
     features creating user excitement and
     satisfaction (as the proponents allege),
     anything that creates user exitement and
     satisfaction is retroactively claimed as part
     of Web 2.0.

2.  Allegations of the death of Microsoft or its
     influence are way premature.  I have yet to
     see a naked browser.  There's always an
     operating system under it.  IE is still the
     most popular browser by a ratio of nearly 2 to
     1, and Windows is the most popular operating
     system with a market share of nearly 90%.
     There are still many web sites that only work
     with IE.  A widely cited article predicts that
     compatibility requirements of Windows Vista
     relating to DRM are likely to prevent hardware
     manufacturers from furnishing either Linux
     drivers or the information needed to develop
     them.  Large organizations continue to deploy
     enormous stultified IT infrastructures largely
     based on Microsoft products.  Whatever one may
     say about Microsoft, it is not irrelevant.

3.  Browsers make rotten platforms for running
     arbitrary applications.  They evolved
     incrementally.  They have not been engineered
     as generic applications platforms.  They
     contain miasmic layers of legacy, modern, and
     fanciful functionality.  And they are moving
     targets of mutual incompatibility.  In
     addition, in contrast to their roots, when
     they were relatively light-weight programs
     with function limited to rendering simple
     HTML documents, they are now enormous,
     bloated, and in constant flux, and therefore
     buggy.  They also take a ton of RAM.  The
     concept of "thin client" has gone completely
     out the window.

4.  As to Google Apps: they have some potential to
     be useful, but they are clearly not ready for
     prime time.  For one thing, they're extremely
     picky about which browser you are running.
     For another, they are slow and
     feature-limited.  I've tried both Docs and
     Spreadsheets.  The Spreadsheets app is
     miserably slow on a slow computers, and really
     annoying with a slow internet link.  And
     before someone says "Duh!", let me point out
     that Gnumeric, OpenOffice Calc, and Excel work
     fine on the same computers.

     Also, Google Apps offer nowhere near the
     feature set of the comparable standalone
     applications.  Imported documents do not
     retain their formatting. The feature where you
     can e-mail documents to be imported seems to
     be broken. And although you can create a
     relatively good-sized spreadsheet in the App,
     the limit on the size of an imported
     spreadsheet is easily exceeded.  So although
     Google Apps might be useful if you need to
     collaboratively author or edit a document,
     that's the only situation I'd consider using
     Google Apps in their current form.  If I
     simply need the document to be accessible
     wherever I am, I can carry a USB key.

5.  Server-hosted applications are not the only
     way to implement collaborative editing.

6.  There are a number of possible problems
     associated with using Google's remotely hosted
     applications. First, you could lose access to
     both the application and your stored documents
     if your net access is disrupted, Google has
     technical problems, or Google decides to stop
     offering the service.  Even assuming Google
     does nothing "evil", they're not perfect, and
     there's still a significant chance you could
     lose data as a result of a technical problem
     or someone doing something stupid.  Second,
     you can't really be sure of the security and
     privacy of centrally stored documents when a
     server-based application can edit them.
     Remotely hosted applications are thus not
     going to work for broad classes of users and
     documents.  Brian may have made his peace with
     these, but I'm not sure other users are going
     to be as sanguine about these risks.  And it's
     unclear what POP3 access to Gmail has to do
     with accessing documents in the Google Apps
     service.

     And if you don't believe any of these are
     serious risks, just take a look at Google's
     "terms of service" for the Apps service, which
     appear to be distributed over pages at more
     than five different URLs and would take more
     than 15 pages to print using a font of
     ordinary size.  According to these terms (if
     they are applicable and enforceable), Google
     basically owes you nothing, no matter what
     happens or whose fault it is.  All of Google's
     duties are illusory. Services are offered on a
     "reasonable commercial efforts" basis.  And
     even if you purchase the subscription Google
     Apps service, all they "guarantee" is uptime
     for the Gmail service, and your only remedy if
     they fail to meet the stated uptime is some
     time tacked on to your subscription.  That
     kind of service might be OK for hobby stuff,
     but it is not suitable for important business
     or personal documents.

--Neil