IBM To Announce Web-Based Desktop Apps 322
mgoulding writes "IBM is expected to announce a software bundle targeted to business users that will challenge the Microsoft Office package. Unlike Office, the email, word-processing, spreadsheet, and database products will be accessible to Linux, Unix, and heldheld users through a web server. NewsFeed posts the story from CNET." It's certainly something that's been tried before - witness sites like MyWebOS (no longer existing).
Pricing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the really big question is: What is its compatibility with MS Office?
Office.NET (Score:5, Interesting)
Annoying (Score:2, Interesting)
eSuite? (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhh (Score:2, Interesting)
However, it didn't fly then, why would it fly now?
Re:Pricing? (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens if the network is down? I can just see it now -
CFO - anyCompany - "I have a huge presentation to make and I can't print my slides!"
I'd hate to be the IT manager getting that call.
Better UI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:tough sell to management (Score:4, Interesting)
MS has this (Score:4, Interesting)
old idea, new interface? (Score:5, Interesting)
This might look like IBM is trying to get back some sales from Dell -- the machine sitting on a user's desk can be anything, but the server in the back room will be an IBM, worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Or will the web interface simply download a java application to the person's local machine?
Didn't Lotus try this with Java? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
So, you've never sat on a dumb terminal (or terminal emulator) attached to a powerful cluster of IBM S/390s
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
It will appeal to pointy haired power freaks who dislike the idea of employees having letters and/or spreadsheets on their C: drive. This way, everything is on the company managed central server. Mwahahahaha! Of course, there are cood reasons for that as well - backuip, legal liability, central administration. But they are, broadly speaking, considerations for megacorps not the small user. And it is the magacorps who are IBM's favourite customers.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
It crashed and burned then, and as much as I applaud the effort, I don't see any clear reason why it won't do so again this time. They may be marketing well to the geeks by saying the right things (platform independence, low TCO, easy distribution), but the end-user ultimately rules the roost, and if the last go-around is any indication, the products will be slow and clunky, only partially functional, and generally leaving a lot to be desired. You'll spend more time answering "why doesn't it do X?" phone calls than you ever spent deploying and administering Office.
I truly hope they do better this time, but if they do pull it off you could likely knock me over with a feather.
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea is when you're running the Java plugin in your browser, you can 'launch' full applications right from the site. It can be either in a single JAR file, or split amongst many (JWS is supposed to download the pieces as they are needed).
Anyway, it is pretty neat and it's come a long way. With some improvements it might be viable to launch full-blown apps such as Office and whatnot (assuming you can get them running well enough in Swing or whatever), although the downloader still needs work to more intelligently decide which pieces to get.
I've written a few JWS apps already and it seemed pretty good, but they really do have some bugs to work out before it's ready for prime time.
Java-based? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that it might actually be something Java-based. The article says:
The web interface will be limited to things like initial setup (like java web start), browsing on-line help, group collaboration etc.
I wonder why they didn't use TIBET(tm)? (Score:5, Interesting)
already in WebSphere Portal (Score:1, Interesting)
Their sales pitch is that 80% of MS Word users use 20% of the functionality. If they can undercut the Word license per user they can get in the corporate door. (lots of users = lots of license savings) even when requiring a WebSphere license it would still be cheaper.
Re:Office.NET (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course this could have been done years ago with Mozilla's XUL...
Re:Didn't Lotus try this with Java? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Annoying (Score:2, Interesting)
I know exactly what you mean, most webmail interfaces compare very unfavourably to my preferred email client (Mail.app).
However, if it's done properly I think it could work. Have you used the web interface for MS Exchange? At a glance you wouldn't know it wasn't a 'real' mail client.
Re:old idea, new interface? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the key is that the application can be run offline. Like some other posters, I'm also betting it's Java-based, because of this, rather than using something like X packet-forwarding or HTML, both of which would be unbearable with any lag.
Java Applet Using SWT? (Score:5, Interesting)
The key is to overcome the previous issues with this type of arrangement: It should also run off-line, and act like a local GUI app, e.g., not refresh the screen with each formatting change.
I suspect that this is doable using Java Applets running the sucks-way-less-than-Swing SWT. Sun should definitely be VERY AFRAID.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:1, Interesting)
Assuming web access... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about network downtime? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Office.NET (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:tough sell to management (Score:2, Interesting)
serendipity (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really the only way to make money with the trend towards to linux-ish environment, subscription services and customization, and that is going to beless of import compared to the actual meatworld aspect of USING the net and computing to make money, as opposed to making that possible. That means large computing industries will stil be there and important, but not like they were in the past, where the mere adoption of newer technology was the profit maker, it will by necessity switch back to "this is the tool, NOW we work with the tool to make money". Just "the tool business" will go back to second place, like it has in every other business. In other words, you use the tools to work, the tool itself is not "the work". Microsoftsd model, is "the toolis always the work", thinking people are just going to keep shoveling huge amounts of cash their way. Erroneous thinking. IBMs idea is more correct, tools are getting cheaper inevitably and more widespread, but they have to be *cheap*,and make the money on bulk sales of the tools and just a tool sharpening service, if I can use that analogy.
And IBM will do better the cheaper they make the initial install, the cheaper they can get those tools out the door, all the way to "free" install if they are *really* smart, and make their cash from just the subscription for maintainence and updates and upgrades, and that has to be cheap, and I see they are planning on only 2 bucks a seat, so there ya go, it's a smooth move on their part, IMO.
Love it when I get immediate backup like this!
For a basic rule of thumb, look to what the younger people in business adopt,or more accurately what they bring in that's fresh in the way of ideas that they are enthusiastic about, then flash forward one to two decades,and you'll see that is what is "dominant" then. You can go back in history and see it repeated all the time, in a variety of businesses and practices.
Right now, the main hardware interest with very young people is really an all in one portable device that does everything, I mean *everything*. You look 10 years from now, that will be the dominant platform, hardware that can do anything, and will be able to communicate with any other hardware, either in physical proximity to other devices with wireless, or in an internet revolving mesh-like manner using a combination of wires and wireless, all revolving around what the internet is morphing into.
IBM gets it right this time I think.
anyone spotted that this is Eclipse based yet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not an IBM Hosted service (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Assuming web access... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine the main target environment would be the corporate desktop: an instance of the server software would be run internally to the company, so no Internet access is required, just intranet access.
Re:tough sell to management (Score:3, Interesting)
The chances that Joe would be doing something very different with his cached application on his laptop while on a plane then at his office desk are very slim.
Sounds like something that Java Webstart and Java Beans (google for them) should be able to handle with no special webserver. (so could
Conclusion: Nothing special, move along folks, just marketeers at work.
Re:old idea, new interface? (Score:3, Interesting)
Larger organizations really ought to be giving the X Window System a good hard look. Remember 20 years ago when the cube farm was nothing but acre upon acre of IBM 3270 terminals? [columbia.edu] Those were the days when a single desktop flunkie could service hundreds of users, because a terminal either worked or it didn't, and when it didn't, you just swapped it out for a working one.
Now it's 2004, and we have IBM behind Linux. Imagine the power of LTSP (the Linux Terminal Server Project) [ltsp.org] running on a big mainframe serving applications to hundreds, or even thousands, of LTSP client stations. This is the true power of Network Computing -- and yes, it's still a good idea. It failed in the late 1990's because the McNealy/Ellison idea of Network Computing meant that you had to throw away all your Windows applications on day one and replace them with pure Java applications. Not so with what I'm suggesting here -- you can mix Java apps, web apps, native Linux apps, and even Windows apps using your choice of emulation (Wine, etc.) or rdesktop to a Windows appserver.
The desktop as we know it needs to disappear for large installations. It makes sense for small installations, and for developers, and hackers, etc. but for your typical large office full of hundreds of nontechnical users, we need to go back to the "glass house" model of computing that worked so well for so long. And we'd be there already, if Microsoft and Intel weren't so good at preserving the inefficient, bloated status quo.
Re:Office.NET - OWA (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that MS are moving slowly on this one (which is probably a good idea) and only releasing web based office products 1) when they actually work & 2) when they can sell a server OS and client licenses with it
Re:Pricing? (Score:2, Interesting)
"The company plans to charge customers $2 per user per month for access to the software, plus the cost of server software, such as IBM's WebSphere"
Re:Office.NET (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably mainly for marketing reasons -- having two different office suites on the market would be confusing. There was a lot of press on this project, BTW -- it was called NetDocs or something.
I worked at an IBM business partner and saw this "new" Lotus Workspace software about 5 years ago, and it was the same problem -- It wasn't Notes, it wasn't SmartSuite. What is it? It's a lot easier to do this stuff when extends an existing product (like MS's webified version of Project).
In those days, it was being mainly pitched towards "NC" thinclient customers.