Pot. Kettle. Black.
His writing style plays for cheap laughs by insulting people, but that can only go so far. After a while, don't people grow up and get tired of that kind of thing? "Mike Arrington is a doody-head! Hah hah! Poop!"
Were one to look at his actual point, one might also go back 30 years and wonder if those silly upstarts at Microsoft with their "pee sees" have a chance against serious mainframes, with the millions of lines of code already written for them.
That comparison would only make sense if mainframes and PCs cost essentially the same, used the same hardware platform, and the mainframe could run all the software as the PC (but not the other way around).
> In terms of functionality, web apps have been a regression from their desktop counterparts.
They're not better - at least not initially. They're good enough.
Will web apps follow that path and displace desktop apps? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not as ridiculous a concept as the rant makes it out to be.
TechCrunch goes on to report: "Don’t worry about those desktop apps you think you need. Office? Meh. You’ve got Zoho and Google Apps. You won’t miss Office."
Web apps may be disruptive, but that doesn't make them more useful or more likely to take off.
I'm doubting that Google is just going to make another net kiosk distribution. Making an operating system for themselves is how they are going to really get their web technology out in the open.
While this may be a step which is required to bring the web as a platform forwards, I'm not sure I like the sound of that either.
Microsoft rely on their closed source, Google rely on physically owning the servers their services rely on. Will you be able to run your own set of Google services on your own kit, or on a third-party VM host and retain the full functionality of Chrome OS? I doubt that somehow.
Basically, I don't think this has been very thought through.
I DO want to see local apps accessible via the browser though. That has a lot of potential to be cool.
edit: local apps as in hosted locally, whether on the same computer or on the home network somewhere. Basically, where your data is your data and no one else's :)
'Applications' running on your local machine that are web centric can be reached via the localhost url, everything else knows how to talk to the display engine already (and at a much higher clip than a browser would be able to offer).
There are absolutely limitations to using the browser as an interface to apps, but you gain in that "Remote Desktop" becomes trivial to implement and that you can have one expensive server and a bunch of thin-clients all over your house.
It's just the way I think it's headed, and I think that's pretty cool.
I think I'll avoid the Ted Dziuba koolaid.
This phrase, alone, makes me wanna buy a Real News Paper subscribtion. I never read such profanity reading the Washington Post.
Why perform inexpensive literary contortions, and dive face first into pie just to make me laugh, Ted Dziuba?
The canonical example of failure in tech journalism is TechCrunch, a blog that once declared Google's MapReduce to be a system that "reduced the links found on the web into a map that search algorithms could run over." Yes, this will do nicely.
While you could say that The register obviously would have an "agenda" to discredit other competing sites, I honestly find The register, despite the snarky style, much more informative and useful than TechCrunch.
Passing techcrunch off as "journalism" is what is laughable. Its just gossip and insider PR-hype.
"Keep whackin' away on that Pareto Principle and let us all know how it turns out. In the meantime, I'm going to go play a few rounds of Counterstrike on my Windows-based PC"
That's one way to kill your own argument about technical knowledge superiority. Counterstrike? seriously? Windows can be forgiven... but counterstrike?
It demeans his argument from a scathing piece (which I mostly agree with) to a blatant rant...