

Google Official Rebuts Microsoft's Cloud Critiques - msredmond
http://redmondmag.com/articles/2011/02/01/google-betting-on-evolution.aspx

======
kenjackson
_I think it's definitely a myth that you can get a richer client-side
experience with thick-client software than you can with Web-based software. If
you asked me that same question four or five years ago, I'd say you're
absolutely correct. If you ask me that question now, I'd point to a variety of
the applications that are out there that are built in HTML5 and have
tremendously rich client-side experiences. The benefit beyond the tremendously
rich client-side experience is you don't have to download anything._

Is this true? For really rich client apps don't you have to download
substantial amounts of Javascript/CSS/HTML? Once you factor out the respective
runtimes (browser/CRT/JVM/CLR), what is the size delta for comparable
applications?

IL tends to be denser than code. But HTML/CSS push a lot more to the runtime
than most code/runtime combos do (Silverlight and Flash probably being the two
big exceptions).

I guess my uber question is are we really moving to a thin client world, or
are we moving to a world with a really huge runtime, data in the cloud, and
non-trivially sized apps that still get downloaded?

~~~
othermaciej
There's another, in my opinion more obvious, problem with his statement.

The rise of native apps and the app store model for mobile devices is new
since four or five years ago. It reverses the trend of more and more client
software moving the the Web. And native apps in practice deliver richer
experiences for touch-based mobile devices than most HTML5 Web Apps.

It seems weird to me to completely ignore one of the biggest changes in
client-side software development over the past 4 or 5 years.

~~~
kenjackson
Yes, thanks for that obvious problem. The expected retort then should be, "All
that Render Script stuff we saw for HoneyComb is going to get cut right? HTML5
is all you need?"

------
rbarooah
Isn't 'not having to download anything' becoming a bit meaningless now? Rich
web apps do download plenty, and signing up on a web form isn't any simpler
than a couple of clicks to download from an app store. The fact that Google
thinks the Chrome app store is worthwhile only emphasizes this.

I think that in this case, ease of use arguments are pretty arbitrary - the
key question is who manages the data and who has access to it, and to me that
seems to depend on the particular application. I see absolutely no reason
other than the increased control given to Google that we shouldn't have both
types of application so we can make these choices for ourselves.

