In your other posts, I was (and still am) unsure of your reference to "indexed DB". I am new to Chrome and Google Docs and not familiar with its structure/implementation. I made a mental note to research "indexed DB" in Google's usage.
"Indexed DB" is just the new way for HTML 5 applications to store offline content as "Web SQL" has been discontinued. Basically it is (or will be) how HTML 5 applications save their offline state (so it's not just a Google thing).
Think of it as an advanced method of HTML cookies!
I was contemplating the possibility of Google simply syncing this "Indexed DB" state between logon sessions (potentially on separate devices) but I don't think that would work as this DB may store large amounts of temporary data.
I think, to ensure a consistent user experience, Google will need to implement another API into a user’s Google account for 3rd party applications to store content and settings that can be synced between Chrome OS sessions.
I read through your test results and it looks like I came to the same conclusion that you did!
That's not to say I don't think Google can get this right. As long as they don't give up on ChromeOS (as jragosta mentioned above).
However the problem Google are trying to solve isn't unique to Google. The basic goal is to change a user’s digital life from being device-centric to cloud-centric.
That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device.
This is the essence of "post PC" and something both Apple and Microsoft are also working toward.
The main difference I see with Google is that they have chosen HTML and the browser as their client UI, where Apple and Microsoft are both aiming for thicker client sides.
"Indexed DB" is just the new way for HTML 5 applications to store offline content as "Web SQL" has been discontinued. Basically it is (or will be) how HTML 5 applications save their offline state (so it's not just a Google thing).
Think of it as an advanced method of HTML cookies!
Is that what this is all about -- A browser local store using JavaScript to manipulate arrays?
When I stopped doing web development, I stopped paying attention to HTML standards and the like.
Without knowing any details (I will do some research) I would think that WebSQL (or WebDB) was/is a superior approach.
Another developer and I had a system working in 2004 -- a browser-driven system where you could run comprehensive web apps on the desktop or on the web, or both. It included:
1) a Web Server
2) a Web Application Server
3) a High-Level Web Programming Language Interpreter/compiler
4) a SQL Database server
5) the populated database itself
6) Applications to use the above
No, Flash was not used in any form.
You could package the whole thing as a single file (.app on Mac OS X) and distribute it on a CD -- a typical package, including applications and data, would be 60MB, AIR.
You could even run the system from the CD if there were no DB updates.
The CD package could self-install -- copy itself to the desktop where it would run as a robust application(s) with full DB capability.
This was before the ubiquity of SQLite.
The package, if installed with the correct desktop permissions, could execute OS CLI level commands -- Essentially anything you could do from a terminal window, you could do within the app.
This included things like find and open a Word .doc file, then copy/paste the contents to the app -- or send a search request to the online iTunes store, retrieve, process and present the results.
Also, there is a concept/structure called a "Thin Array". With associated JavaScript routines (supplied) it makes it very easy to efficiently manipulate tabular data without the need to use an SQL DB. With it, for example, it is easy to create a browser version of the iTunes application -- that looks and functions exactly like the iTunes App on the desktop. This includes multiple resizable, sortable and rearrangeable columns; the ability to issue calls (searches) to the online iTunes store...
I guess that this one reason I am frustrated by Chrome's lack of offline capability -- it's all been done before (apparently even with Google offerings like Gears).
Certainly, one should try to live within established standards! But standards are meant to evolve -- If you can popularize a needed feature/implementation, it can be incorporated into the standard.
Quote:
I was contemplating the possibility of Google simply syncing this "Indexed DB" state between logon sessions (potentially on separate devices) but I don't think that would work as this DB may store large amounts of temporary data.
I think, to ensure a consistent user experience, Google will need to implement another API into a user’s Google account for 3rd party applications to store content and settings that can be synced between Chrome OS sessions.
I read through your test results and it looks like I came to the same conclusion that you did!
That's not to say I don't think Google can get this right. As long as they don't give up on ChromeOS (as jragosta mentioned above).
However the problem Google are trying to solve isn't unique to Google. The basic goal is to change a user’s digital life from being device-centric to cloud-centric.
That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device.
This is the essence of "post PC" and something both Apple and Microsoft are also working toward.
The main difference I see with Google is that they have chosen HTML and the browser as their client UI, where Apple and Microsoft are both aiming for thicker client sides.
We are pretty much in agreement!
Your:
"That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device."
says it all -- it shouldn't be either Cloud or Desktop, you choose -- I choose both.
I can see some real technical advantages to the Chrome OS approach, but I think it needs to co-exist with the desktop (as we know it) for several years, at least -- right now, the Emperor still wears his clothes and it is the Tailor who is naked.
I would feel a lot better about Chrome OS's prospects if:
1) it weren't offered/positioned as a Jihad again Microsoft -- Chrome really needs the capability to process Office files in and out, offline -- as well as process them online.
2) If it were sold, rather than partially given away. I prefer to pay for what I use -- rather than be subject to some unspecified, on-going use-tax (access to my information) that can change at any time.
My opinion is that if something cannot be sold or rented for a fair value, including warranty -- it aint worth using!
Is that what this is all about -- A browser local store using JavaScript to manipulate arrays?
When I stopped doing web development, I stopped paying attention to HTML standards and the like.
Without knowing any details (I will do some research) I would think that WebSQL (or WebDB) was/is a superior approach.
I don't know what to say...
I did some reading...
Apparently, Google had a pretty good implementation of a local store for Web Docs app data -- using WebSQL.
The way I read it, several competitive web web browsers didn't like the lead that WebKit browsers had using WebSQL.
For flimsy reasons such as "passing an SQL request as a string is inelegant" they stonewalled the proposal of an WebSQL standard -- instead securing an inferior construct, an associative array (indexed key-value pairs) as an acceptable alternative called IndexedDB.
I can't believe it...politics ruled the day! ... Yeah, I can!
Too bad Google caved -- they could have stuck with the Chrome Browser (and other WebKit browsers) support for WebSQL and have a robust Chrome OS offering today.
I understand that they wanted Google Docs to work on as many browsers as possible. But, by sacrificing their use of WebSQL they delayed Chrome OS to where it is today -- lacking features (offline operation) that Google had successfully implemented several years ago.
What is ironic, is that Google could have continued with WebSQL for Chrome and simultaneously implemented IndexedDB to support other browsers.
Had it done so, ChromeOS and the Chrome browser would have a significant advantage over its competition -- and the ChromeBook/ChromeOS offering just might have been ready for prime time, today.
...I hope Apple doesn't cave and continues to use WebSQL in Safari.
For those of you who don't understand my prior post where I asserted that the deprecated WebSQL solution was/is superior to the accepted IndexedDB solution...
Here's an example of WebSQL (Web Database) vs IndexedDB -- in practical use:
The article apologizes for the complexity of the recommended IndexedDB solution -- because IndexedDB doesn't support a Join.
AFAICT, IndexedDB still does not support a Join!
First, here's the inelegant solution using WebSQL
Then, the "superior" (though slower, larger and harder to code/debug/maintain) solution using IndexedDB... Oh Yeah!
For more information, read the bilge at this site:
I know this thread is about ChromeBooks, ChromeOS, Google Docs -- and implied 3rd-party apps for ChromeOS.
As I understand, Google has abandoned WebSQL for the inferior IndexedDB.
And this has delayed the release of Chrome OS and Google Docs apps (with local store capability)
I have not been following Web app development capabilities for the last 5 years -- so my knowledge is not current.
But here's an interesting (at least to me) tidbit of information (emphasis mine):
Quote:
HTML5 Client-Side
Storage in Safari
The advanced Safari browser included in iOS supports the latest HTML5 offline data storage features. The offline storage means a web app can store session data locally in a cache on the iPhone or iPod touch device, using either a simple key/value data API, or a more advanced SQL interface. The data is persistent among Safari launches, meaning apps start up faster, are less dependent upon the network, and perform better than ever before.
What it says to me is that a Mac or an iDevice running Safari browser has both IndexedDB and WebSQL available for local storage.
That means that an iDevice has more flexibility and power, than the recently Eunuched Chrome and Google Docs Offerings.
Now, follow me here...
1) An iPad running iOS already has the ability to open and process MS Office documents and process and store them on the local device (the iPad, itself).
2) The iPad lacks a Cloud solution to online process similar to Google Docs.
3) The iPad can save files to iDisk or iWork.com -- but you can't edit them online or colaborate... yet!
4) Currently, you must download iWork.com or iDisk files from the cloud to edit them (do anything but display, annotate or print them.
What if Apple goosed iWork.com to allow online creation and editing of iWork (nee MS Office Documents)
Collaboration would be nice but that could come later.
Then, between MobileMe, iWork.com and iDisk -- Apple would have a solution that:
1) worked through device apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Photo Gallery, iDisk, Find My Device)
2) worked online through a browser
3) could be shared, sync and stored locally, online -- or both.
For Mac and iDevice users, this would be the best of both the Cloud and Local Device worlds.
And, since Apple would sell the service (rather than mine my data) I would feel more comfortable using the Cloud for some files (that I wouldn't trust to Google)
I don't believe an Apple offering will replace the WinDrones in the enterprise -- any more than a Google ChromeBook solution will!
But, I certainly would continue paying for an enhanced MobileMe (Shhh... maybe, even pay a little more).
1) it weren't offered/positioned as a Jihad again Microsoft -- Chrome really needs the capability to process Office files in and out, offline -- as well as process them online.
I actually think the opportunity to hurt Microsoft's Windows/Office cash cow is one of the main (if not the main) reason for Chrome OS and Google Docs.
You've probably heard of Microsoft integrating Facebook deeper into Bing. The general feeling I get is that this kind of stuff is really going to hurt Google... if Microsoft continue to have endless spare cash to throw into their Online Services black hole.
The only other option is for Google to become successful at social (apparently their number 1 goal at the moment).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here's an example of WebSQL (Web Database) vs IndexedDB -- in practical use:
That certainly looks ugly!
As a sidenote I'm not sure how much Google actually write directly in JavaScript. The Google Web Toolkit allows web apps to be written in Java with a custom API (GWT) which are then cross compiled to optimised JavaScript for each browser.
I'm not sure if they have included access to IndexedDB (or WebSQL) in the GWT API. However I suspect they would have this working (at least internally) before releasing the offline-capable version of Google Docs... I can't imagine coding something that complex in JavaScript!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What it says to me is that a Mac or an iDevice running Safari browser has both IndexedDB and WebSQL available for local storage.
I think it could be referring to plain old Web Storage as well as WebSQL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What if Apple goosed iWork.com to allow online creation and editing of iWork (nee MS Office Documents)
Collaboration would be nice but that could come later.
Then, between MobileMe, iWork.com and iDisk -- Apple would have a solution that:
1) worked through device apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Photo Gallery, iDisk, Find My Device)
2) worked online through a browser
3) could be shared, sync and stored locally, online -- or both.
You're kind of describing the Microsoft Office / SkyDrive integration
Basically...
You can create a file (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) online and edit it in the basic online editor (which IMO in a little nicer than Google Docs).
You can share documents and collaborate with other users
If you have Office installed have the option to open the document in Word/Excel/Powerpoint where you have the full office capabilities
You can then save back to the cloud, or save the document offline
You can also save an existing offline document to SkyDrive where it can be edited/shared etc.
Where it fails is offline syncing. Microsoft have "Live Mesh" which syncs a folder between PCs and SkyDrive (basically a simple DropBox). However files synced with Live Mesh can't be edited in the online editor.
My guess is that this is because the functionality they have at the moment is the result of an amalgamation between a few different products. They should hopefully fix it up soon.
I would expect it to work so that:
If I created a document online, or someone shared a document with me, that document would appear on my hard drive.
If I created a document on my hard drive, that document would appear online and on my other devices.
If I edited the document and saved it, those changes would be synced back to the cloud, my other devices, and to others that share the document.
If I didn't have Office installed, I could edit the document in the online editor. Once again changes would be synced back to my devices.
On storage limited devices (like my phone) some kind of "smart" syncing would be employed. Such as only caching recent documents or documents I've specified I would like to be accessible offline.
Microsoft OneNote (which I didn't mention above) has pretty much got it right:
I can create a "notebook" offline.
That notebook is synced to my other PCs where Office is installed, the PC of people I share the notebook with, and SkyDrive.
I can view/edit the notebook online via SkyDrive on devices that don't have Office installed
The online real issue is the limited version on the iPhone. I can handle the advanced features not being available (like viewing embedded Excel documents) but it doesn't even support full formatting (like tables).
I actually think the opportunity to hurt Microsoft's Windows/Office cash cow is one of the main (if not the main) reason for Chrome OS and Google Docs.
You've probably heard of Microsoft integrating Facebook deeper into Bing. The general feeling I get is that this kind of stuff is really going to hurt Google... if Microsoft continue to have endless spare cash to throw into their Online Services black hole.
The only other option is for Google to become successful at social (apparently their number 1 goal at the moment).
That certainly looks ugly!
As a sidenote I'm not sure how much Google actually write directly in JavaScript. The Google Web Toolkit allows web apps to be written in Java with a custom API (GWT) which are then cross compiled to optimised JavaScript for each browser.
I'm not sure if they have included access to IndexedDB (or WebSQL) in the GWT API. However I suspect they would have this working (at least internally) before releasing the offline-capable version of Google Docs... I can't imagine coding something that complex in JavaScript!
I think it could be referring to plain old Web Storage as well as WebSQL.
You're kind of describing the Microsoft Office / SkyDrive integration
Basically...
You can create a file (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) online and edit it in the basic online editor (which IMO in a little nicer than Google Docs).
You can share documents and collaborate with other users
If you have Office installed have the option to open the document in Word/Excel/Powerpoint where you have the full office capabilities
You can then save back to the cloud, or save the document offline
You can also save an existing offline document to SkyDrive where it can be edited/shared etc.
Where it fails is offline syncing. Microsoft have "Live Mesh" which syncs a folder between PCs and SkyDrive (basically a simple DropBox). However files synced with Live Mesh can't be edited in the online editor.
My guess is that this is because the functionality they have at the moment is the result of an amalgamation between a few different products. They should hopefully fix it up soon.
I would expect it to work so that:
If I created a document online, or someone shared a document with me, that document would appear on my hard drive.
If I created a document on my hard drive, that document would appear online and on my other devices.
If I edited the document and saved it, those changes would be synced back to the cloud, my other devices, and to others that share the document.
If I didn't have Office installed, I could edit the document in the online editor. Once again changes would be synced back to my devices.
On storage limited devices (like my phone) some kind of "smart" syncing would be employed. Such as only caching recent documents or documents I've specified I would like to be accessible offline.
Microsoft OneNote (which I didn't mention above) has pretty much got it right:
I can create a "notebook" offline.
That notebook is synced to my other PCs where Office is installed, the PC of people I share the notebook with, and SkyDrive.
I can view/edit the notebook online via SkyDrive on devices that don't have Office installed
The online real issue is the limited version on the iPhone. I can handle the advanced features not being available (like viewing embedded Excel documents) but it doesn't even support full formatting (like tables).
Keep it up please -- I'm learning and getting current.
Interseting your final comments.
I've felt that MS is missing the [tablet] boat by not implementing iOS and Android versions of Office apps.
But, maybe they are saving that for a WinTab solution -- though I think MS is missing an opportunity to gain touch and tablet experience... The iPad population is a pretty big test bed.
From what you've described as MS Office / Skydrive -- it appears that MS in a position that if ChromeBook/Chrome OS gains any acceptance -- MS can just jerk the chain a bit and swat this GooglePest down.
Keep it up please -- I'm learning and getting current.
Whilst time permits. That last one took a while to write
I'm keeping it easy this time. The below is just my opinion. No facts & references.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I've felt that MS is missing the [tablet] boat by not implementing iOS and Android versions of Office apps.
I've often felt the same way. However my family is decked out with iDevices and my work uses Office, so I'm in a position to see how compelling Office across all platforms would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But, maybe they are saving that for a WinTab solution.
That may very well be the case.
It will be interesting to see if:
1. Microsoft are even able to create something iPad-like given they are being dragged down by legacy support and business requirements and
2. Whether Office is enough of a "killer app" to help the "WinTab" compete with the huge lead Apple (and by that time Google) have.
If Windows 8 desktop/tablet isn't able to kick start Windows revenue growth I can't imagine the "Windows guys" inside Microsoft can prevent the "Office guys" from expanding Office across all platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
From what you've described as MS Office / Skydrive -- it appears that MS in a position that if ChromeBook/Chrome OS gains any acceptance -- MS can just jerk the chain a bit and swat this GooglePest down.
IMO... yes and no
When the first netbooks were released there were a lot of people that thought we could see the rise of Linux... until Microsoft stepped in with cut-price licensing for netbooks.
It turned out that, given the choice, people still wanted Windows... they just weren't willing to pay much for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see something similar with the ChromeBook. It doesn't really have to be a raging commercial success. If Microsoft decide they want to protect their market share they might have to reduce pricing on Windows/Office licensing.
If that happens it's still a big "win" for Google, even without swallowing up huge chunks of market share.
It's an hour long but quite worthwhile. Of course some of you may already know a lot of it or more than the presenters but it's an interesting primer and interesting look at the "Google approach" to web apps.
In trying to "decide" myself here between native apps and web apps, it has been informative. Also hints to what developers have to do to make "ChromeOS apps".
There was a part where they answered the question "Should my app be web or native?" and the presenters said, if it's content, web, if it's functionality, native. Plus "you're always going to need a website..."
I have not been following Web app development capabilities for the last 5 years -- so my knowledge is not current...
Kudos, you've been researching hard nonetheless. Check out the video link above. I've been out of the loop for about 5 years as well, heck, almost 10 years because I shifted gradually to visual and UI design and Flash work as opposed to development. Only in the past 3 years have I recently dipped my head back into the HTML/ CSS/ Javascript soup.
What is interesting about the video is also at the end of it, people are left wondering still, what exactly can web apps do, how much can we push it, how are people going to find the web apps (they touched very briefly on "web app stores"), how is it going to come together.
I mean, it is an area of R&D no doubt that Google is putting quite some resources into. I wouldn't be surprised ChromeBook is part of Google's R&D efforts to see what people come up with but no doubt the primary objective is to get them onto Google Apps. Personally I like Google Apps to some degree (the Apple reseller I've worked with is using Google Apps, it's a reasonable SME solution for email and some collaborative documents) except there's no offline use yet. I do have privacy concerns about businesses going to Google Apps, all your business info are belong to Google.
From the Google IO Keynote ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxzucwjFEEs ) I get the impression that Google is going all out to dominate your digital life... for better or worse. Google has harnessed the very best minds in the world and created this roaming digital playground... but like the Architect in the Matrix they do have a specific purpose to all this "freedom, play and openness". Again, for better or worse.
If governments are worried about location tracking, that's the tip of the iceberg. The CLOUD stuff is where things really start to get hairy. All your info, media, communication, with one or more very large companies. Them knowing where you are is a smidgen of what they store about you.
Comments
In your other posts, I was (and still am) unsure of your reference to "indexed DB". I am new to Chrome and Google Docs and not familiar with its structure/implementation. I made a mental note to research "indexed DB" in Google's usage.
"Indexed DB" is just the new way for HTML 5 applications to store offline content as "Web SQL" has been discontinued. Basically it is (or will be) how HTML 5 applications save their offline state (so it's not just a Google thing).
Think of it as an advanced method of HTML cookies!
I was contemplating the possibility of Google simply syncing this "Indexed DB" state between logon sessions (potentially on separate devices) but I don't think that would work as this DB may store large amounts of temporary data.
I think, to ensure a consistent user experience, Google will need to implement another API into a user’s Google account for 3rd party applications to store content and settings that can be synced between Chrome OS sessions.
I read through your test results and it looks like I came to the same conclusion that you did!
That's not to say I don't think Google can get this right. As long as they don't give up on ChromeOS (as jragosta mentioned above).
However the problem Google are trying to solve isn't unique to Google. The basic goal is to change a user’s digital life from being device-centric to cloud-centric.
That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device.
This is the essence of "post PC" and something both Apple and Microsoft are also working toward.
The main difference I see with Google is that they have chosen HTML and the browser as their client UI, where Apple and Microsoft are both aiming for thicker client sides.
"Indexed DB" is just the new way for HTML 5 applications to store offline content as "Web SQL" has been discontinued. Basically it is (or will be) how HTML 5 applications save their offline state (so it's not just a Google thing).
Think of it as an advanced method of HTML cookies!
Is that what this is all about -- A browser local store using JavaScript to manipulate arrays?
When I stopped doing web development, I stopped paying attention to HTML standards and the like.
Without knowing any details (I will do some research) I would think that WebSQL (or WebDB) was/is a superior approach.
Another developer and I had a system working in 2004 -- a browser-driven system where you could run comprehensive web apps on the desktop or on the web, or both. It included:
1) a Web Server
2) a Web Application Server
3) a High-Level Web Programming Language Interpreter/compiler
4) a SQL Database server
5) the populated database itself
6) Applications to use the above
No, Flash was not used in any form.
You could package the whole thing as a single file (.app on Mac OS X) and distribute it on a CD -- a typical package, including applications and data, would be 60MB, AIR.
You could even run the system from the CD if there were no DB updates.
The CD package could self-install -- copy itself to the desktop where it would run as a robust application(s) with full DB capability.
This was before the ubiquity of SQLite.
The package, if installed with the correct desktop permissions, could execute OS CLI level commands -- Essentially anything you could do from a terminal window, you could do within the app.
This included things like find and open a Word .doc file, then copy/paste the contents to the app -- or send a search request to the online iTunes store, retrieve, process and present the results.
Also, there is a concept/structure called a "Thin Array". With associated JavaScript routines (supplied) it makes it very easy to efficiently manipulate tabular data without the need to use an SQL DB. With it, for example, it is easy to create a browser version of the iTunes application -- that looks and functions exactly like the iTunes App on the desktop. This includes multiple resizable, sortable and rearrangeable columns; the ability to issue calls (searches) to the online iTunes store...
I guess that this one reason I am frustrated by Chrome's lack of offline capability -- it's all been done before (apparently even with Google offerings like Gears).
Certainly, one should try to live within established standards! But standards are meant to evolve -- If you can popularize a needed feature/implementation, it can be incorporated into the standard.
I was contemplating the possibility of Google simply syncing this "Indexed DB" state between logon sessions (potentially on separate devices) but I don't think that would work as this DB may store large amounts of temporary data.
I think, to ensure a consistent user experience, Google will need to implement another API into a user’s Google account for 3rd party applications to store content and settings that can be synced between Chrome OS sessions.
I read through your test results and it looks like I came to the same conclusion that you did!
That's not to say I don't think Google can get this right. As long as they don't give up on ChromeOS (as jragosta mentioned above).
However the problem Google are trying to solve isn't unique to Google. The basic goal is to change a user’s digital life from being device-centric to cloud-centric.
That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device.
This is the essence of "post PC" and something both Apple and Microsoft are also working toward.
The main difference I see with Google is that they have chosen HTML and the browser as their client UI, where Apple and Microsoft are both aiming for thicker client sides.
We are pretty much in agreement!
Your:
"That doesn't necessarily mean "hosted in the cloud", but more "synced to the cloud". So that all the stuff you own is available on all devices you own, instead of being centred on one device."
says it all -- it shouldn't be either Cloud or Desktop, you choose -- I choose both.
I can see some real technical advantages to the Chrome OS approach, but I think it needs to co-exist with the desktop (as we know it) for several years, at least -- right now, the Emperor still wears his clothes and it is the Tailor who is naked.
I would feel a lot better about Chrome OS's prospects if:
1) it weren't offered/positioned as a Jihad again Microsoft -- Chrome really needs the capability to process Office files in and out, offline -- as well as process them online.
2) If it were sold, rather than partially given away. I prefer to pay for what I use -- rather than be subject to some unspecified, on-going use-tax (access to my information) that can change at any time.
My opinion is that if something cannot be sold or rented for a fair value, including warranty -- it aint worth using!
Is that what this is all about -- A browser local store using JavaScript to manipulate arrays?
When I stopped doing web development, I stopped paying attention to HTML standards and the like.
Without knowing any details (I will do some research) I would think that WebSQL (or WebDB) was/is a superior approach.
I don't know what to say...
I did some reading...
Apparently, Google had a pretty good implementation of a local store for Web Docs app data -- using WebSQL.
The way I read it, several competitive web web browsers didn't like the lead that WebKit browsers had using WebSQL.
For flimsy reasons such as "passing an SQL request as a string is inelegant" they stonewalled the proposal of an WebSQL standard -- instead securing an inferior construct, an associative array (indexed key-value pairs) as an acceptable alternative called IndexedDB.
I can't believe it...politics ruled the day! ... Yeah, I can!
Too bad Google caved -- they could have stuck with the Chrome Browser (and other WebKit browsers) support for WebSQL and have a robust Chrome OS offering today.
I understand that they wanted Google Docs to work on as many browsers as possible. But, by sacrificing their use of WebSQL they delayed Chrome OS to where it is today -- lacking features (offline operation) that Google had successfully implemented several years ago.
What is ironic, is that Google could have continued with WebSQL for Chrome and simultaneously implemented IndexedDB to support other browsers.
Had it done so, ChromeOS and the Chrome browser would have a significant advantage over its competition -- and the ChromeBook/ChromeOS offering just might have been ready for prime time, today.
...I hope Apple doesn't cave and continues to use WebSQL in Safari.
Here's an example of WebSQL (Web Database) vs IndexedDB -- in practical use:
The article apologizes for the complexity of the recommended IndexedDB solution -- because IndexedDB doesn't support a Join.
AFAICT, IndexedDB still does not support a Join!
First, here's the inelegant solution using WebSQL
Then, the "superior" (though slower, larger and harder to code/debug/maintain) solution using IndexedDB... Oh Yeah!
For more information, read the bilge at this site:
Firefox 4: An early walk-through of IndexedDB
I used to like Mozilla -- now, not so much!
This (WebSQL) is what Google gave up -- so they could be late in bringing Chrome OS and Web Docs (with local store) to market.
I know this thread is about ChromeBooks, ChromeOS, Google Docs -- and implied 3rd-party apps for ChromeOS.
As I understand, Google has abandoned WebSQL for the inferior IndexedDB.
And this has delayed the release of Chrome OS and Google Docs apps (with local store capability)
I have not been following Web app development capabilities for the last 5 years -- so my knowledge is not current.
But here's an interesting (at least to me) tidbit of information (emphasis mine):
HTML5 Client-Side
Storage in Safari
The advanced Safari browser included in iOS supports the latest HTML5 offline data storage features. The offline storage means a web app can store session data locally in a cache on the iPhone or iPod touch device, using either a simple key/value data API, or a more advanced SQL interface. The data is persistent among Safari launches, meaning apps start up faster, are less dependent upon the network, and perform better than ever before.
Data Management - iOS Technology Overview - Apple Developer
I did not know that!
What it says to me is that a Mac or an iDevice running Safari browser has both IndexedDB and WebSQL available for local storage.
That means that an iDevice has more flexibility and power, than the recently Eunuched Chrome and Google Docs Offerings.
Now, follow me here...
1) An iPad running iOS already has the ability to open and process MS Office documents and process and store them on the local device (the iPad, itself).
2) The iPad lacks a Cloud solution to online process similar to Google Docs.
3) The iPad can save files to iDisk or iWork.com -- but you can't edit them online or colaborate... yet!
4) Currently, you must download iWork.com or iDisk files from the cloud to edit them (do anything but display, annotate or print them.
What if Apple goosed iWork.com to allow online creation and editing of iWork (nee MS Office Documents)
Collaboration would be nice but that could come later.
Then, between MobileMe, iWork.com and iDisk -- Apple would have a solution that:
1) worked through device apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Photo Gallery, iDisk, Find My Device)
2) worked online through a browser
3) could be shared, sync and stored locally, online -- or both.
For Mac and iDevice users, this would be the best of both the Cloud and Local Device worlds.
And, since Apple would sell the service (rather than mine my data) I would feel more comfortable using the Cloud for some files (that I wouldn't trust to Google)
I don't believe an Apple offering will replace the WinDrones in the enterprise -- any more than a Google ChromeBook solution will!
But, I certainly would continue paying for an enhanced MobileMe (Shhh... maybe, even pay a little more).
1) On my iPad, I opened a Word .doc file in Pages and copied it to the clipboard
2) In iPad Safari I went to an Apple Demo app ont the web
3) The web app creates sticky notes and stores their content and x and z position in a local SQL database.
4) The browser app could easily store the same data on the web -- though it doesn't....I don't think.
5) I pasted the Word .doc content to a stickey note and moved it around in the browser window.
6) I exited Safari, deleted all the apps from the task bar, powered down, then up the iPad.
7) I disconnected from the Internet
8) i started Safari, opened the page -- everything was as I left it
9) I reran the original app from the web -- it showed everything was shown on the last-used
App run.
i didn't have an online WP app -- but that's no big deal.
I didn't need to upload any files before being able to use them online.
I don't think the web app stored the db on the web -- though it may have cached it?
The web app may have refreshed itself from the local store -- though I don't know how it figured out which page to refresh from (I had several)
So, with what's available today, I was able to do:
-- offline processing of a Word .doc file with Pages
-- offline get the Word .doc content to the clipboard
-- online paste the clipboard to a document
-- edit the online content
-- process the online content offline without the internet available including editing the content
-- automatically synch (update) the online content with the local content when the Internet connection was restored
Except for online Google Docs apps, isn't this what this ChromeBook stuff is all about?
***interesting stuff***
Nice wrap up
1) it weren't offered/positioned as a Jihad again Microsoft -- Chrome really needs the capability to process Office files in and out, offline -- as well as process them online.
I actually think the opportunity to hurt Microsoft's Windows/Office cash cow is one of the main (if not the main) reason for Chrome OS and Google Docs.
You've probably heard of Microsoft integrating Facebook deeper into Bing. The general feeling I get is that this kind of stuff is really going to hurt Google... if Microsoft continue to have endless spare cash to throw into their Online Services black hole.
The only other option is for Google to become successful at social (apparently their number 1 goal at the moment).
Here's an example of WebSQL (Web Database) vs IndexedDB -- in practical use:
That certainly looks ugly!
As a sidenote I'm not sure how much Google actually write directly in JavaScript. The Google Web Toolkit allows web apps to be written in Java with a custom API (GWT) which are then cross compiled to optimised JavaScript for each browser.
I'm not sure if they have included access to IndexedDB (or WebSQL) in the GWT API. However I suspect they would have this working (at least internally) before releasing the offline-capable version of Google Docs... I can't imagine coding something that complex in JavaScript!
What it says to me is that a Mac or an iDevice running Safari browser has both IndexedDB and WebSQL available for local storage.
I think it could be referring to plain old Web Storage as well as WebSQL.
What if Apple goosed iWork.com to allow online creation and editing of iWork (nee MS Office Documents)
Collaboration would be nice but that could come later.
Then, between MobileMe, iWork.com and iDisk -- Apple would have a solution that:
1) worked through device apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Photo Gallery, iDisk, Find My Device)
2) worked online through a browser
3) could be shared, sync and stored locally, online -- or both.
You're kind of describing the Microsoft Office / SkyDrive integration
Basically...
- You can create a file (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) online and edit it in the basic online editor (which IMO in a little nicer than Google Docs).
- You can share documents and collaborate with other users
- If you have Office installed have the option to open the document in Word/Excel/Powerpoint where you have the full office capabilities
- You can then save back to the cloud, or save the document offline
- You can also save an existing offline document to SkyDrive where it can be edited/shared etc.
Where it fails is offline syncing. Microsoft have "Live Mesh" which syncs a folder between PCs and SkyDrive (basically a simple DropBox). However files synced with Live Mesh can't be edited in the online editor.My guess is that this is because the functionality they have at the moment is the result of an amalgamation between a few different products. They should hopefully fix it up soon.
I would expect it to work so that:
Microsoft OneNote (which I didn't mention above) has pretty much got it right:
- I can create a "notebook" offline.
- That notebook is synced to my other PCs where Office is installed, the PC of people I share the notebook with, and SkyDrive.
- I can view/edit the notebook online via SkyDrive on devices that don't have Office installed
- The notebook is also synced to my iPhone.
Unfortunately there is no "HD" iPad versionThe online real issue is the limited version on the iPhone. I can handle the advanced features not being available (like viewing embedded Excel documents) but it doesn't even support full formatting (like tables).
Nice wrap up
I actually think the opportunity to hurt Microsoft's Windows/Office cash cow is one of the main (if not the main) reason for Chrome OS and Google Docs.
You've probably heard of Microsoft integrating Facebook deeper into Bing. The general feeling I get is that this kind of stuff is really going to hurt Google... if Microsoft continue to have endless spare cash to throw into their Online Services black hole.
The only other option is for Google to become successful at social (apparently their number 1 goal at the moment).
That certainly looks ugly!
As a sidenote I'm not sure how much Google actually write directly in JavaScript. The Google Web Toolkit allows web apps to be written in Java with a custom API (GWT) which are then cross compiled to optimised JavaScript for each browser.
I'm not sure if they have included access to IndexedDB (or WebSQL) in the GWT API. However I suspect they would have this working (at least internally) before releasing the offline-capable version of Google Docs... I can't imagine coding something that complex in JavaScript!
I think it could be referring to plain old Web Storage as well as WebSQL.
You're kind of describing the Microsoft Office / SkyDrive integration
Basically...
- You can create a file (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) online and edit it in the basic online editor (which IMO in a little nicer than Google Docs).
- You can share documents and collaborate with other users
- If you have Office installed have the option to open the document in Word/Excel/Powerpoint where you have the full office capabilities
- You can then save back to the cloud, or save the document offline
- You can also save an existing offline document to SkyDrive where it can be edited/shared etc.
Where it fails is offline syncing. Microsoft have "Live Mesh" which syncs a folder between PCs and SkyDrive (basically a simple DropBox). However files synced with Live Mesh can't be edited in the online editor.My guess is that this is because the functionality they have at the moment is the result of an amalgamation between a few different products. They should hopefully fix it up soon.
I would expect it to work so that:
Microsoft OneNote (which I didn't mention above) has pretty much got it right:
- I can create a "notebook" offline.
- That notebook is synced to my other PCs where Office is installed, the PC of people I share the notebook with, and SkyDrive.
- I can view/edit the notebook online via SkyDrive on devices that don't have Office installed
- The notebook is also synced to my iPhone.
Unfortunately there is no "HD" iPad versionThe online real issue is the limited version on the iPhone. I can handle the advanced features not being available (like viewing embedded Excel documents) but it doesn't even support full formatting (like tables).
Keep it up please -- I'm learning and getting current.
Interseting your final comments.
I've felt that MS is missing the [tablet] boat by not implementing iOS and Android versions of Office apps.
But, maybe they are saving that for a WinTab solution -- though I think MS is missing an opportunity to gain touch and tablet experience... The iPad population is a pretty big test bed.
From what you've described as MS Office / Skydrive -- it appears that MS in a position that if ChromeBook/Chrome OS gains any acceptance -- MS can just jerk the chain a bit and swat this GooglePest down.
Keep it up please -- I'm learning and getting current.
Whilst time permits. That last one took a while to write
I'm keeping it easy this time. The below is just my opinion. No facts & references.
I've felt that MS is missing the [tablet] boat by not implementing iOS and Android versions of Office apps.
I've often felt the same way. However my family is decked out with iDevices and my work uses Office, so I'm in a position to see how compelling Office across all platforms would be.
But, maybe they are saving that for a WinTab solution.
That may very well be the case.
It will be interesting to see if:
1. Microsoft are even able to create something iPad-like given they are being dragged down by legacy support and business requirements and
2. Whether Office is enough of a "killer app" to help the "WinTab" compete with the huge lead Apple (and by that time Google) have.
If Windows 8 desktop/tablet isn't able to kick start Windows revenue growth I can't imagine the "Windows guys" inside Microsoft can prevent the "Office guys" from expanding Office across all platforms.
From what you've described as MS Office / Skydrive -- it appears that MS in a position that if ChromeBook/Chrome OS gains any acceptance -- MS can just jerk the chain a bit and swat this GooglePest down.
IMO... yes and no
When the first netbooks were released there were a lot of people that thought we could see the rise of Linux... until Microsoft stepped in with cut-price licensing for netbooks.
It turned out that, given the choice, people still wanted Windows... they just weren't willing to pay much for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see something similar with the ChromeBook. It doesn't really have to be a raging commercial success. If Microsoft decide they want to protect their market share they might have to reduce pricing on Windows/Office licensing.
If that happens it's still a big "win" for Google, even without swallowing up huge chunks of market share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV85dNeGRhY
It's an hour long but quite worthwhile. Of course some of you may already know a lot of it or more than the presenters but it's an interesting primer and interesting look at the "Google approach" to web apps.
In trying to "decide" myself here between native apps and web apps, it has been informative. Also hints to what developers have to do to make "ChromeOS apps".
There was a part where they answered the question "Should my app be web or native?" and the presenters said, if it's content, web, if it's functionality, native. Plus "you're always going to need a website..."
I have not been following Web app development capabilities for the last 5 years -- so my knowledge is not current...
Kudos, you've been researching hard nonetheless. Check out the video link above. I've been out of the loop for about 5 years as well, heck, almost 10 years because I shifted gradually to visual and UI design and Flash work as opposed to development. Only in the past 3 years have I recently dipped my head back into the HTML/ CSS/ Javascript soup.
What is interesting about the video is also at the end of it, people are left wondering still, what exactly can web apps do, how much can we push it, how are people going to find the web apps (they touched very briefly on "web app stores"), how is it going to come together.
I mean, it is an area of R&D no doubt that Google is putting quite some resources into. I wouldn't be surprised ChromeBook is part of Google's R&D efforts to see what people come up with but no doubt the primary objective is to get them onto Google Apps. Personally I like Google Apps to some degree (the Apple reseller I've worked with is using Google Apps, it's a reasonable SME solution for email and some collaborative documents) except there's no offline use yet. I do have privacy concerns about businesses going to Google Apps, all your business info are belong to Google.
From the Google IO Keynote ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxzucwjFEEs ) I get the impression that Google is going all out to dominate your digital life... for better or worse. Google has harnessed the very best minds in the world and created this roaming digital playground... but like the Architect in the Matrix they do have a specific purpose to all this "freedom, play and openness". Again, for better or worse.
If governments are worried about location tracking, that's the tip of the iceberg. The CLOUD stuff is where things really start to get hairy. All your info, media, communication, with one or more very large companies. Them knowing where you are is a smidgen of what they store about you.
You guys should watch this if you haven't already. Good video from Google IO about the latest in developing mobile web apps and offline use etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV85dNeGRhY
Interesting question about offline handling and syncing (basically one of the points I was addressing above) at 47m 50s.
"We need more libraries... Javascript isn't quite there yet."
It's going to be interesting to see what they come up with.