[gmueckl]

Well, if your problem is the network stack, then don't use it. My word processor doesn't need to be Frankenstein's monster with parts running in my totally abused hypertext viewer and others running on some servers distributed across half the globe where most of the work their are performing is making sure that they are talking to each other properly. Same goes for almost everything else that is a totally ridiculous "browser-based" abomination.

OK, let's turn this into less of a rant: if you can do things in a native desktop app, you're almost always better off than with a browser based solution.

If you need networking, then you need to put up with latency and throughput. Thay is just unavoidable. What is avoidable is the overhead of unsuitable protcols. HTTP is perfect for one-off stateless requests for documents from a remote server. That is the whole point. But people crammed haphazard session tracking into it (cookies) and wonky authentication, then decided that having open sessions on the server is not something you do and layered an extra layer of statelessness on top of that while all the conplex browser based applications out there are actually incredibly stateful on the client and server. A native client that uses a custom tailor-made stateful protocol to talk to a server that also keeps session state would be much faster and more efficient than the shaky Jenga tower of compoments that are cobbled together to form the current generation of browser based software.

[la12]

> if you can do things in a native desktop app, you're almost always better off than with a browser based solution

The reason fewer and fewer people are doing this are more to do with funding. So if I were to build software today, I'd instantly go with web-apps so that I can monetize them as much as I want.

Web app software has zero issues with piracy and in built regular cash flow model which everyone wants.

Find a way to fund desktop apps and make them as easy to build like web apps and they'll be vogue again.

[TeMPOraL]

In other words: companies and individual developers alike prioritize their business needs over providing value to the users. I could stomach this excuse if people were at least honest about it.

And still, it's not applicable everywhere. E.g. if you're targeting business customers, the ones that can afford to pay you are also the ones that would be in deep trouble with the regulators if they pirated your software.

But that's just part of the problem. Unfortunately, with business customers, another big reason against desktop applications is that they can trivially work around the increasingly arcane and arguably bullshit approval and security policies corporations tend to have around installing new software. Though that seems to be changing; I've recently heard of companies using deep packet inspection to apply similar policies to SaaS webapps.

[mushufasa]

>> In other words: companies and individual developers alike prioritize their business needs over providing value to the users.

I disagree. I would say that web apps are popular because they provide more value. If/when users/companies demand native apps, developers build that instead.

Web apps are easier for users to manage (no installation, no upgrading versions) and instantly cross-platform. Installation is not trivial for a non-technical person, nor an IT manager monitoring and upgrading thousands of PCs and tablets. The natural revenue models fit because the value is recurring -- the subscription means you constantly have installation, upgrades, and data taken care of as a service.

[TeMPOraL]

And I disagree with you; asking for users to "demand" native apps is a cop-out, because no matter how loudly users scream, nobody cares. Voting with your wallet doesn't work in a non-commodity market; the supplier is in control, and you can only take it or leave it.

> Web apps are easier for users to manage (no installation, no upgrading versions) and instantly cross-platform.

That's true, with a caveat that automated, forced updates are not an universal good - both for companies and individuals they're a source of risk and frequent frustrations.

> Installation is not trivial for a non-technical person, nor an IT manager monitoring and upgrading thousands of PCs and tablets.

This was mostly solved a good decade ago. Hello screen [Next>] accept the TOS without reading [Next>] leave default settings [Next>] uncheck the sneaky toolbar some morally deficient people put in [Next>] wait for install to finish [Done]. Sysadmins had a way to batch-install software in a non-interactive way. And these days, even Windows has a package manager that allows scripted installations.

> The natural revenue models fit because the value is recurring -- the subscription means you constantly have installation, upgrades, and data taken care of as a service.

Disagree. Installation is a one-time service, updates are as often undesired as they're not, and "data taken care of as a service" is bundling in something that should stay separate, in a sneaky attempt to lock the user in and ensure a recurring revenue stream. The case is simple: businesses like recurring revenue; everything else is either facilitating or attempting to justify it.

Turning products into services is one of the most annoying and anticonsumer trends of the current age. I get that business customers like it because of accounting reasons, but it's becoming a problem for everyone else. Next thing you know, you'll have to sign a TOS to use your hairdryer as a service.