The NC brigade
Apr 16th, 2008 by handolio
This is sort of the second half to the earlier Microsoft post, where I was rambling on about people running lightweight operating systems on lightweight computers, and only requiring lightweight applications delivered through a browser.
I’m reminded of the Network Computer, or NC, something that a consortium of manufacturers and the database company Oracle tried to foist on us in the late 90s. The NC was a ‘thin client’, without a disk, and with bugger-all in the way of software - the storage would be centralised on a remote server.
At the time, I was working at Bullfrog, and remember universal resistance to the idea. Why, people asked, would I let my code, my music, my software be stored remotely?
Data Dog
It’s still a valid question but, with basic, portable desktops that can run in a browser session, that seems to be where we’re headed. If so, how has that resistance been eroded? Are Google, Adobe, or the developers using Gears or Air more trustworthy than Oracle, who (I assume) would have stored the data from NCs? Or have we simply given up caring where our data is stored?
I reckon it’s a bit of both.
As Dave pointed out on my Facebook T&C post, most users probably don’t know or care that there are T&Cs attached to uploading their content to social sites. Not all services want control of the content you upload like Facebook does, though (and to be fair to Facebook I find it unlikely that they’d flex their user-p0wning licence without being nice enough to ask first). Flickr’s terms allow Yahoo to use your images to promote Flickr, but the license only exists until you delete the pictures.
Are we anywhere near the kind of reassurance a business would require? I think Scott’s right when he says that most businesses would be unhappy with an apps suite that might cache or store confidential information elsewhere. As for any developer allowing source code to live elsewhere, it’s just a non-starter.
But maybe there are exceptions. If I’m reading this Shane Richmond post right, The Telegraph was seriously considering dropping Office for Google Apps. Perhaps it has now.
The end of empire
Regardless, two things strike me about the erosion of Microsoft’s empire. First, it sounds like what’s happening in publishing (and in TV, music etc): huge and long-standing companies seeing their business shift or disappear within a few short years because technology and community conspire to make it redundant.
And second, I’m reminded of a question that Mark Higginson asked me: If changes in the way we create, consume and share information are taking away the conditions that created and supported the media and IT giants, won’t our form of government ultimately follow them into the history books?
IMAGE Flickr user bjortklingd
I think there’s always going to be a need for offline apps, as well as online apps. Anything high-end - CAD, photo/video-editing, software development etc will most likely stay as offline. Some machines dedicated to these tasks don’t even have internet connections so that they’re protected from viruses as well as ensuring they’re as fast and efficient as they can be. If more and more consumer applications become online then I think that can only be a good thing for the consumer (easy access), developers (easy to update applications and deploy) and the environment (people don’t need to upgrade machines as often?).
I’m now using Google Apps instead of Microsoft Office/Outlook etc and so are many of my colleagues. It’s still in the testing phase at the moment but, if only because of the difference in cost, I think it’s likely that the whole company will soon switch.
Having said that, I still use iWork more than the Google Office stuff.
Thanks Shane. We’re on Office 2007 at work, and the user experience is so hateful that I’ve started using Open Office at home.
I’ve got Vista on one of my home PCs to make sure I can cover it for Computer Shopper articles, but I can’t think of a single reason why I’d recommend anyone to upgrade from XP.