Except install on a machine without administrative privileges.
Many applications can be written to install/run completely with user privileges. Though some platforms make this easier than others. A lot of apps I download for OS X, I just launch from the download location and only copy to
First, why not just install the app and put a URL link on the desktop pointing to http://localhost:7777/? Second, are you really sure it makes sense to have a self hosted web app? I, for one, absolutely despise when companies ship some tool that installs a web server on my machine and makes me use it through a web browser. IIRC, HP did this kind of garbage for managing their printers. Write a god damn native app if it is just going to install on my local machine!
I realize that you probably want to save some money and not write two pieces of software that do the same thing, but how hard can it possibly be to make a UI in
It really sounds like you are approaching this problem from the completely wrong angle.
but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.
Oh just shut up. I'm so sick and tired of this line. My MacBook Pro was price competitive with similarly spec'd Dell laptops when I bought it. Just because they don't cater to the low/budget end of the market doesn't make them "trendy." At worst, Apple simply lacks selection in their product line. Do Macs always have the best raw price/performance ratio, maybe not, but it isn't like there's an order of magnitude difference of in price.
Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model.
And there's something about Apple that doesn't allow companies to do this? I would argue that Apple makes it easier to skip generations of hardware and OSes because they release so often. Think about it. OS X is at its eighth major release cycle since Windows XP came out in 2002 whereas Microsoft has made 3 major releases for the desktop (XP, Vista, and 7). You can try to count SP1-3 if you like, they weren't really optional.
The nice thing about Apple hardware in a corporate environment is that you don't have to worry too much about drivers and maintaining a zillion different hardware configurations, many of which are not fully supported without thirst party driver support. Hell, you could even take a copy of OS X Leopard (10.5) htat was installed on an x86 based machine and copy it directly to a PPC based machine and it would just run. No modifications necessary. Microsoft couldn't even get the 32bit -> 64bit transition figured out for the longest time. Apple made all that completely seamless. In many ways there just no reason not to upgrade more often with OS X. The changes are usually incremental.
NOt that Macs are necessarily the best choice for corporate environment now, but it isnt' because of the things you mentioned.
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out.
No, they don't. They might not have support going as far back as Microsoft, but you won't suffer for skipping a generation or two. Though it is kind of funny how many people wouldn't think twice of using a Windows version released in 2002, but you'd be crazy to even consider running OS X 10.0.
Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
Right, because Dell and Microsoft don't want you to upgrade to the latest versions....
Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves.
What!? You mean Apple doesn't try to be everything to everyone? You mean to say they have a very clear vision and focus? I'm shocked!
Here's an thought. If OSX, iPad, and Macs are not for you, why don't you just shut up?
Why would you choose a chromebook over a normal netbook? That is a point. I wouldn't, unless Ik wanted the hardware. You wouldn't. But, what about corporate? I see the whole ChromeOS thing aimed mainly at corporations, because you don't have to worry about most infections, you don't really need to manually monitor each machine(IIRC, there's a great remote administration infrastructure).
I want you to stop for a second and ask yourself why Windows has been so successful in business. Here's a hint: It isn't because WIndows can run a web browser. If infections were such a worry and native apps were not so important, Linux would have taken over corporate environments a long time ago.
It seems like it would be a boon for high-turnover positons: Each can be issued a chromebook, get their own profile, and not be tied to any one device. Also, losing the physical hardware shouldn't be a problem: Since everything's server side, you just write off the lost hardware, take out another from your stores, and keep working. I think this is the main benefit for these machines.
First of all, Chromebooks are not designed for heavy use. They're small, light and meant to be highly portable, not to be workhorses. You would not be assigning such a machine to your average office worker. You MIGHT give one as a take-home computer, but not to an employee in a high turnover position.
As far as "apps" go, I can see quite a few industries where they're basically just server interfaces anyway, so why go with a single-platform, potentially unsupported language like VB or IE6-html?
Right, like
It seems like those are the people Google might just get on board.
No, those are the people that are least likely to get on board. If LInux and OS X can't break big into business envrionemnts (on the desktop), Chrome OS has absolutely no chance.
Especially since they could simply write it in generic-html and have it work with both Chrome and FF, etc. Once it works there, it works cross-platform. The IT folks can use the apps on their Linux machines, the graphics department on their Macs, others on Windows, and even use it on the Kiosk Chromebooks.
Ok, here it is: Web apps SUCK. Developing robust web apps SUCKS. HTML is a shitty tool for building business applications that can compete with desktop equivalents. I should know, I'm a web developer. What does everyone look to as the best desktop-like web app out there? Google Apps. But look at it objectively. Aside from the ability to share documents in realtime, Google Docs is the feature and UI equivilent of MS Office from 1992. We're talking Windows 3.x. That's right, it is 20 years behind native apps and HTML5 will only be an incremental improvement.
It seems to me that while you may like your Mac, what happens when Corporate makes you use a Windows PC for a week? If the important bits are simply HTML and tied into Google Apps, you could literally just log in and have all your preferences right there.
Good lord! I'd honestly rather use Windows than have to use Google Apps as my primary office tool. Or I can run MS Office on my Mac. Or run some critical business program inside Parallels. Or you can setup a Windows Remote Desktop server and I can run all business apps through that. There are options for me if I want to use a Mac in a business environment. Fortunately for me, I've been able to avoid running Windows on my desktop at home and work for almost 20 years. I've always been able to run LInux or OS X as my desktop.
I don't know what problem you think you're solving by pushing shitty web apps on people when native apps work perfectly fine. Bottom line is that I just don't WANT everything to become web based. The web is good for some things, but absolutely terrible for others.
If you watch carefully, you notice that while they got many details wrong, the basics are mostly correct. While our buildings look nothing like in the background image of the BBC part, for example, they do in fact incorporate many technological advances.
I think you're working pretty hard to make sense of their predictions. They specifically said "sophisticate new forms of buildings." They didn't say "buildings with better technology." The latter is just a given. Of course newer materials, heating/cooling techniques will be used in the future. But they're largely the same structures with the same functions. Also, there hasn't been a significant move to the cities. They were way off on that one. If anything, people are trying to get out of cities to own land. At least in the US. NOt sure how it applies to the Britain.
The error is only in how visible those are.
No, the error was in thinking that buildings would radically change. They haven't. No new "forms" of buildings. Honestly, I don't even really know what that's supposed to mean.
Also, no choosing our children. While some genetic screening is certainly possible, most people will not opt to do it. So they were off on that one also.
And for computers they predicted... more software? Um, ok.
They did get the importance of satellites right.
They got TV's right, I guess. Though it wasn't too amazing of a prediction. I think we can safely say that technology will get "smaller" without taking much risk.
They really didnt' get much right.
The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.
