The reason I don't agree with the term failure is because that is a fairly terminal statement. Failure means that something is finished and has little chance of ever being a success. This certainly is not the situation web apps are in.
Web services are used by hundreds of millions of people. There are millions of media phones that do not have the sophisticated app development of the iPhone/Android and can only access Facebook and YouTube mobile pages.
Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. It's been far from successful.
There's a difference between most web based services, and the MS web based Office, or Google's documents. Those are simply not popular.
But what if we qualify it as revenue from mobile web apps? How has that fared?
Well, I meant that as of now it's been a failure. It's like Windows tablets. Yes, they sold 1.5 million last year, but that was only .5% of all computers sold. When you compare that to Gate's prediction in 2001 that in five years most computers sold will be tablets, then it's a failure. If it was sold as being good for a few limited markets, then it might be considered a success.
This "cloud" computing model has been sold for a few years now as the NEXT BIG THING, and hasn't caught on. I'm not talking about things such as mail services and such either. I'm talking about web apps. So far, it hasn't succeeded.
I'm sure in general you'd make more money selling a native app than providing web apps with ads, but then Google isn't doing too bad for itself.
Google's entire business model is selling Ads. That's it! Everything they have done is based on selling more Ads. At some point, that increase will mature into a slow growth rate, and Google's growth will tail off.
The only purpose to theAndroid phone is to sell Ads. It's pretty clear to me that they're spending billions on methods to continue expanding ways to do that, and at the same time trying to halt the possible erosion in Ads on devices such as the iPhone/Touch, and now the iPad.
People are buying, or downloading for free, apps that bypass the Google search engine front end. When that happens, people don't see the Ads. That's why Google came out with Android. They look upon that as an Ads delivery platform that bypassed Apple's app store. There is already more aggressive Ad serving on Android phones than on the iPhone.
Apple wants to keep its developers, so they countered. Now Apple will enable third party programs to more easily acquire Ads in their programs to help the developers make money. Google wants that money for themselves as part of their business model.
That's why Google's move into cloud computing. It's just more free apps with Ad serving attached.
This "cloud" computing model has been sold for a few years now as the NEXT BIG THING, and hasn't caught on. I'm not talking about things such as mail services and such either. I'm talking about web apps. So far, it hasn't succeeded.
It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.
I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.
All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.
It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.
I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.
All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.
I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.
Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.
I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.
Most of what they're doing isn't really what we would call cloud services, because they are corporation to corporation. I'm familiar with that. When the web is just being used as a communication method, it's not properly a cloud service, any more than the telephone is. When I order parts over the internet, it's not a cloud service. If I hook into a corporate database, that isn't either.
The cloud model depends on a third party, or several of them between the ends of the transactions, doing web program serving, storage and backup, game serving, etc. If anything, the big game systems we see such as World of Warcraft are the only true cloud services going on right now. And even that's just partial. Usually, it's between two companies for a particular service and those two with others.
The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.
What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.
Oh well yes in the regard of office and document creation software then yes web apps are not good for that. A least not until they are made to feel like a local app.
I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. It's been far from successful.
There's a difference between most web based services, and the MS web based Office, or Google's documents. Those are simply not popular.
Oh well yes in the regard of office and document creation software then yes web apps are not good for that. A least not until they are made to feel like a local app.
I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.
I agree, but that's not really "The cloud". It's not much more than what's been happening since about 1995. Even Compuserve, which I used, by some definitions then, could be called cloud services.
I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.
If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service. Same thing for music and video. If all of it resides there, then it's a cloud based service, but the way it is now, it isn't. Streaming services are cloud services, but they're not really all that popular. At this time, people want to own, and store locally, what they want. That would have to change so that iPods, iPhones, and other devices only need 4 GM memory again. When can you see that happening?
The problem is that services aren't ubiquitous. 3G service, even for Verizon, is spotty, and much too slow. We need at least 100 times as much bandwidth for the backbones, and that's going to take quite a while. WiFi is even more spotty.
If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service.
I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.
Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.
I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.
Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.
The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.
For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.
This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.
One of Apple's high level strategies is to understand and anticipate the needs of users, rather than simply to respond to their expressed needs. They don't always get it right, and they cannot fulfill every need. The following article deals with some needs Apple users might have that they do not yet know they have. The iPad in particular and Apple's ecosystem in general addresses some *cognitive* productivity needs of users at the moment, and it leaves other cognitive needs unaddressed. Apple is uniquely positioned to solve some *cognitive* needs, as explained briefly here:
He obviously, uhh, meant in the hand, as most people would understand that to mean. Actually, you're wrong about the impression. Look around the web, and you'll see a lot of tech writers that were saying that they didn't think much of it until they used it for a while after the presentation. Almost all of the bad press has been from those who didn't get time with it. Those who did, got it. I'll just present two links, from PCmag, not a bastion of Mac fluffery:
I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.
Quote:
Perhaps, but you seem to be making a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.
Quote:
Why is that? Is the fact that isn't different from what's out there so disturbing that you can't grasp it?
Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.
Quote:
Interesting. So you want this tobe more like the failed Tablet PC that MS has been shoveling for the past 9 years? You do realize that those have been SO unsuccessful that they've never gotten more than 1% of the total computer market? Te best they've done was in 2007, when 2.5 million were sold, about that 1%.
Last year, 1.5 million were sold, less than .5%.
Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.
Quote:
Web apps have been a failure so far, and no one wanted them on the iPhone/Touch, so why would you think people would want them here?
And you want Apple to emulate that failure? Why would that be?
I'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.
Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?
I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.
And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.
What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.
Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.
Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.
The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.
For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.
This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.
That's pretty much correct. I understand that everyone will have a slightly different idea of what this means. Most of the proponents in the industry are now allowing for some device based code, whereas before they weren't.
I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.
Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.
Well, I'm going by what I read as the ideal. But reality strikes again! There may be a "cloud", but most stuff isn't on it. The fact that data moves through it doesn't make it a cloud service. MM is partly the way there.
I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.
We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.
What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.
In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.
The numbers actually work out as:
Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%
Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%
So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%
Those figures are far more meaningful.
Quote:
Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.
I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote:
Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.
It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.
What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.
Quote:
Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.
You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.
It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.
Quote:
I'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.
It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.
It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.
I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.
Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?
This is what I see being written as the ideal Cloud model. I agree that it would be a complete implementation. Partial implementations are possible, and for the near future, are more likely.
Quote:
I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.
Yes, I do.
Quote:
And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.
As I say, it's what I read from some in the industry as being the ideal methodology. The long term goal.
Quote:
Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.
Just focussing on the definitions here.
By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already, when those promoting it, such as Google and MS, among the major companies in the field, mean cloud computing, storage AND syncing.
By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already
That's taking my meaning too far in the opposite direction, but I do think the cloud definition is murky. Some people have taken to replacing the phrase "stored it on my online disk" with "stored it in the cloud"... yet in some cases nothing has changed.
I still think part of the definition is that you have all your data available to all your devices via an online storage area. So MobileMe accomplishes this to a degree - but if my iPhone died and I got a new one, I wouldn't be back up and running immediately via my MobileMe account. If my computer died I'd still be reliant on rebuilding, reinstalling apps, etc.
My entire setup is still locked to a device, rather than being device independent. Apple has most of the bits and pieces to make it possible for me to log into ANY Mac and have it configure my preferences, give me access to my data (documents, music, photos....), install my apps (if necessary), and pretty well have me up and running. To accomplish that would require some creative dancing between accessing online data, local syncs, temporary caching - to make it look like my whole system is available to me a minute after logging in.
I guess to me "the cloud" promises my computing ANYWHERE, but I see that as achievable without being all web based client computing.
My point is that the definition of "the cloud" is sufficiently vague that it's worth remembering that if we just say "the cloud" the other person might not understand what we mean by that specifically.
Comments
The reason I don't agree with the term failure is because that is a fairly terminal statement. Failure means that something is finished and has little chance of ever being a success. This certainly is not the situation web apps are in.
Web services are used by hundreds of millions of people. There are millions of media phones that do not have the sophisticated app development of the iPhone/Android and can only access Facebook and YouTube mobile pages.
Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. It's been far from successful.
There's a difference between most web based services, and the MS web based Office, or Google's documents. Those are simply not popular.
Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. [...] Those are simply not popular.
I think you nailed it. Unpopular seems to describe them perfectly.
I agree with that. Failure is certainly extreme.
But what if we qualify it as revenue from mobile web apps? How has that fared?
Well, I meant that as of now it's been a failure. It's like Windows tablets. Yes, they sold 1.5 million last year, but that was only .5% of all computers sold. When you compare that to Gate's prediction in 2001 that in five years most computers sold will be tablets, then it's a failure. If it was sold as being good for a few limited markets, then it might be considered a success.
This "cloud" computing model has been sold for a few years now as the NEXT BIG THING, and hasn't caught on. I'm not talking about things such as mail services and such either. I'm talking about web apps. So far, it hasn't succeeded.
I'm sure in general you'd make more money selling a native app than providing web apps with ads, but then Google isn't doing too bad for itself.
Google's entire business model is selling Ads. That's it! Everything they have done is based on selling more Ads. At some point, that increase will mature into a slow growth rate, and Google's growth will tail off.
The only purpose to theAndroid phone is to sell Ads. It's pretty clear to me that they're spending billions on methods to continue expanding ways to do that, and at the same time trying to halt the possible erosion in Ads on devices such as the iPhone/Touch, and now the iPad.
People are buying, or downloading for free, apps that bypass the Google search engine front end. When that happens, people don't see the Ads. That's why Google came out with Android. They look upon that as an Ads delivery platform that bypassed Apple's app store. There is already more aggressive Ad serving on Android phones than on the iPhone.
Apple wants to keep its developers, so they countered. Now Apple will enable third party programs to more easily acquire Ads in their programs to help the developers make money. Google wants that money for themselves as part of their business model.
That's why Google's move into cloud computing. It's just more free apps with Ad serving attached.
This "cloud" computing model has been sold for a few years now as the NEXT BIG THING, and hasn't caught on. I'm not talking about things such as mail services and such either. I'm talking about web apps. So far, it hasn't succeeded.
It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.
I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.
All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.
It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.
I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.
All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.
I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.
Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.
I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.
Most of what they're doing isn't really what we would call cloud services, because they are corporation to corporation. I'm familiar with that. When the web is just being used as a communication method, it's not properly a cloud service, any more than the telephone is. When I order parts over the internet, it's not a cloud service. If I hook into a corporate database, that isn't either.
The cloud model depends on a third party, or several of them between the ends of the transactions, doing web program serving, storage and backup, game serving, etc. If anything, the big game systems we see such as World of Warcraft are the only true cloud services going on right now. And even that's just partial. Usually, it's between two companies for a particular service and those two with others.
The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.
What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.
I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.
Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. It's been far from successful.
There's a difference between most web based services, and the MS web based Office, or Google's documents. Those are simply not popular.
Oh well yes in the regard of office and document creation software then yes web apps are not good for that. A least not until they are made to feel like a local app.
I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.
I agree, but that's not really "The cloud". It's not much more than what's been happening since about 1995. Even Compuserve, which I used, by some definitions then, could be called cloud services.
I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.
If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service. Same thing for music and video. If all of it resides there, then it's a cloud based service, but the way it is now, it isn't. Streaming services are cloud services, but they're not really all that popular. At this time, people want to own, and store locally, what they want. That would have to change so that iPods, iPhones, and other devices only need 4 GM memory again. When can you see that happening?
The problem is that services aren't ubiquitous. 3G service, even for Verizon, is spotty, and much too slow. We need at least 100 times as much bandwidth for the backbones, and that's going to take quite a while. WiFi is even more spotty.
If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service.
I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.
Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.
I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.
Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.
The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.
For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.
This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2010...d-limitations/
In this respect, the survey results are not as relevant as one might think.
See also:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ce=yahoo_quote
He obviously, uhh, meant in the hand, as most people would understand that to mean. Actually, you're wrong about the impression. Look around the web, and you'll see a lot of tech writers that were saying that they didn't think much of it until they used it for a while after the presentation. Almost all of the bad press has been from those who didn't get time with it. Those who did, got it. I'll just present two links, from PCmag, not a bastion of Mac fluffery:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358602,00.asp
From an editor who was there:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358507,00.asp
I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.
Perhaps, but you seem to be making a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.
Why is that? Is the fact that isn't different from what's out there so disturbing that you can't grasp it?
Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.
Interesting. So you want this tobe more like the failed Tablet PC that MS has been shoveling for the past 9 years? You do realize that those have been SO unsuccessful that they've never gotten more than 1% of the total computer market? Te best they've done was in 2007, when 2.5 million were sold, about that 1%.
Last year, 1.5 million were sold, less than .5%.
Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.
Web apps have been a failure so far, and no one wanted them on the iPhone/Touch, so why would you think people would want them here?
And you want Apple to emulate that failure? Why would that be?
I'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.
This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.
Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.
There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.
Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?
I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.
And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.
The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.
What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.
Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.
Just focussing on the definitions here.
Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.
The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.
For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.
This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.
That's pretty much correct. I understand that everyone will have a slightly different idea of what this means. Most of the proponents in the industry are now allowing for some device based code, whereas before they weren't.
I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.
Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.
Well, I'm going by what I read as the ideal. But reality strikes again! There may be a "cloud", but most stuff isn't on it. The fact that data moves through it doesn't make it a cloud service. MM is partly the way there.
I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.
We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.
What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.
In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.
The numbers actually work out as:
Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%
Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%
So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%
Those figures are far more meaningful.
Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.
I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.
It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.
What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.
Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.
You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.
It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.
I'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.
It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.
It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.
I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.
Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?
This is what I see being written as the ideal Cloud model. I agree that it would be a complete implementation. Partial implementations are possible, and for the near future, are more likely.
I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.
Yes, I do.
And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.
As I say, it's what I read from some in the industry as being the ideal methodology. The long term goal.
Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.
Just focussing on the definitions here.
By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already, when those promoting it, such as Google and MS, among the major companies in the field, mean cloud computing, storage AND syncing.
By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already
That's taking my meaning too far in the opposite direction, but I do think the cloud definition is murky. Some people have taken to replacing the phrase "stored it on my online disk" with "stored it in the cloud"... yet in some cases nothing has changed.
I still think part of the definition is that you have all your data available to all your devices via an online storage area. So MobileMe accomplishes this to a degree - but if my iPhone died and I got a new one, I wouldn't be back up and running immediately via my MobileMe account. If my computer died I'd still be reliant on rebuilding, reinstalling apps, etc.
My entire setup is still locked to a device, rather than being device independent. Apple has most of the bits and pieces to make it possible for me to log into ANY Mac and have it configure my preferences, give me access to my data (documents, music, photos....), install my apps (if necessary), and pretty well have me up and running. To accomplish that would require some creative dancing between accessing online data, local syncs, temporary caching - to make it look like my whole system is available to me a minute after logging in.
I guess to me "the cloud" promises my computing ANYWHERE, but I see that as achievable without being all web based client computing.
My point is that the definition of "the cloud" is sufficiently vague that it's worth remembering that if we just say "the cloud" the other person might not understand what we mean by that specifically.