4 comments

• 

  Fred

  2 years ago

  Nicely written. Keep in mind though, what you call the "wrong war" is clearly the "right war" from Microsoft's POV. I remember Redmond woeing when Google bought Doubleclick, because it may create an internet monopoly of sorts. But Microsoft doesn't mind monopolies per se -- it only minds the ones that are not theirs. So them trying to push people into yet another proprietary solution isn't so surprising after all.
  reply
• 

  John

  2 years ago

  Hi Fred -- that's my exact point, actually -- that it looks like the right thing for them to do, but I think they will have difficulty with this path, and could have done better by aligning in a way that they hadn't before.
  reply
• 

  Brent

  2 years ago

  From my experience, Flash apps tend to look really good: rich, pleasant, and compelling. (I expect Silverlight apps to look and feel at least as good). On the other hand possibly EVERY web app I’ve come across using the web standards you mention (DHTML, CSS, etc…) just look and feel terrible. I use web apps all the time, just because they’re so convenient (usable from every computer), and tend to be FREE, but, dang, they look like crap when compared side-by-side with anything done in Flash or any standard desktop app. (I’ve blogged about side-by-side experiment recently at http://lastcomputer.blogspot.com/2007/05/browse...)
  
  You talk about the relative failure of Java and attribute that failure to Java being a closed system for so long. But Java applications also tend to look just plain terrible, even worse than most web apps, and I think that is the primary reason we don’t see many java applets these days. The problem isn’t open/standard-vs-proprietary, it’s correct technology versus wrong technology.
  
  Could it be that the web-app standards are just the wrong technology for making rich, pleasant, compelling applications?
  reply
• 

  John

  2 years ago

  brent: maybe you're right; it's of course possible. i come from a UI background a while back, and think that both web applications and, generally, open source software have challenges in putting together really compelling user interfaces -- in the former case because (I think) of tooling, in the latter case (I think) because of the committee-like nature of OSS development.
  
  all that i'm saying here is that there are many virtuous effects of an open, non-proprietary ecosystem, and that Microsoft could have used it's huge tooling advantage to build a platform that will benefit from everyone in the world working on it. it would be asymmetric to what Adobe could do with Flash (without opening it), instead of strength-on-strength.
  
  i don't buy all your arguments in the "side-by-side experiment" post -- i think that at a root level, it's all just software, and there's nothing that's inherent in HTML & CSS that precludes a compelling user experience.
  
  i will say, also, that the way something looks is quite different from how usable & useful it is, and i think that it's manifestly obvious right now that the utility of web apps is growing by leaps & bounds every single day, irrespective of how they look.
  
  anyway, we'll see. my only point here that i was really making is that Microsoft had the opportunity to side with the open web against Flash and take advantage of their tooling superiority, but missed the chance, possibly because they line up with your line of reasoning here. completely reasonable; we'll see what happens.
  reply