After all this time it means that the browser is ripe for disruption, and it might not even be a variant of what we've been doing so far... But what is it?What would it look like?
On 22 Nov 2017 8:38 PM, "Ken Schaefer" <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Harris > *Sent:* Wednesday, 22 November 2017 3:44 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Creating a browser-based product > > > > Plugins like Silverlight and Flash made web apps open to using a lot more > of the client machine’s resources to provide an interactive experience. > But, the industry has not supported these plugins for some reason I fail to > fully understand. > > Because Adobe Flash was more bugs than actual working code? The cost of > supporting Flash made it unappealing to people who pay the bills? > > If we cannot use Silverlight or Flash and fat clients are too hard / > expensive to install, you are back to the dumb terminal browser plus > Javascript again. > > Yes, and no. There’s offline storage, and some execution, that can be > offloaded to browsers. > > Look at compute intensive apps like 3D modelling or video editing, they > could never be done properly with today’s browser technology! > > Nothing is binary. At some point, the benefit of running a thick client > native app is greater than the cost of maintaining it. > > But those use cases seem to be shrinking year-on-year. > > Or maybe even a win forms app, because it is fast, I have 100% control *and > it is not really that hard to install*! > > The technical cost of your one app isn’t that much. But the total cost of > supporting a desktop does not increase linearly with the number of apps. It > increases exponentially, and thus doesn’t scale. > > >
