Ahh, TechCrunch50 time. For those outside of the Valley, otherwise known as "The Know," this is the time of year when legions of startups (47) descend onto a common stage under the TechCrunch banner, all eager to pitch their next, greatest idea to a field of hungry judges and enthusiastic audience members.
Every time this happens--or every time any show similar to the TechCrunch50 goes down--I always look forward to the new batch of oddly named Web applications that I'll probably never hear about again, let alone actually use. For this, I have but one source to blame: open data. Just because there's an API or the free-flow of information outward from a single popular source doesn't mean that one always has to make a spin-off project. But if you build it, they will indeed come. The developers, that is, and they're always looking to cash in on the next big variation to an already successful idea.
I'm not exactly sure why this is the case with Web applications and why it's not always mirrored in open-source or freeware software development. What is it about a Web platform that makes it such an intriguing breeding ground for rip-offery? Is it really that easy to create a Web mashup of two social networks instead of pouring the same amount of effort into, say, a new instant messaging application?
How many Twitter variants are out there right now? I can't even begin to fathom just how many sites call into the Twitter API for some unique delivery of one's messages: sites like Twitterfall, Friendfeed, all those Twitter directories that promise to boost your follower count like a big, cross-linked Yellow Pages, et cetera. The list gets thicker still if you count all the direct rip-offs of Twitter itself, including the business-themed Yammer and open-source StatusNet. It's application overload, and that's just a single Web property.
A similar situation occurs with open-source and freeware software development, but it's not nearly as extreme. For example, there are a number of different instant messaging applications that seek to replicate the functions found in more official chat programs like AOL Instant Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger. That's nothing new.
A number of these applications, while similar, still tend to offer enough of a variance in features, interaction, or design to warrant existence. For example, I use Pidgin. I like Pidgin. But I can just as easily see how someone could use Digsby, or Adium, or Trillian to fulfill their conversational needs. Yet, the degree of instant messenger spin-offs isn't nearly as crazy as the number of dead or dying Web applications that launch on a yearly basis. Developers are fine making just one more derivative in a thousand based off a preexisting (and successful) Web platform, yet fail to apply this diverse eye to the software world in such a grand scale.
Is it the payoff that's the problem? I can envision a lot more testing and development involved with getting a stable application off the ground versus one that's designed to work solely via your Web browser. But wouldn't it be easier to attract eyeballs in the software world, where potential competitors can number in the tens, not thousands? And what about the open-source world where the source code is already written for you? You're practically encouraged to create a unique modification on an original concept--tweaking successful software couldn't be any worse than crafting up a new Web app from scratch.
Is it the monetization? Digsby has taken a lot of flak for its unique approaches toward helping the program's development stay afloat. That said, it's not like downloadable software exists in a bubble. Open-source and freeware applications would still depend on the very same advertising methods that any ol' Web site would need to survive--at least, I don't see many Twitter Web apps resorting to subscription fees nowadays.
Is it the culture? Are we slowly reaching the point where the most useful forms of communication and accessibility occur in the Cloud instead of the desktop? I've long since abandoned using installable programs to interact with my personal email accounts. That said, I sure don't see myself transitioning over to a Meebo in place of Pidgin. I'm not going to waste the browser resources, nor do I want the added hassle of instant messages interfering with my normal surfing habits. Some programs just work as Web apps; some don't.
It would be stupid to say that third-party software development is somehow stunted as a result of Web applications. That's not my point. I just can't bear to see the buzz and hype of emerging Web platforms that are so obviously dead in the water before they've even floundered. Why not drop this development into unique freeware or open-source software that has a slightly better chance of making it in the real world? Do we really need this much Web 2.0 waste?
David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!
Comments are closed on this article
1337Goose
September 16, 2009 at 4:39pm
Haha, nice article.
I think launching a web application is just easier. In order to promote a binary application, you need people to download and install your program. Of course, there's always the risk that the newly downloaded tool is just malware. The web provides a safe platform where people have easy access to rich applications without any commitment. In short, it's easier to get people to adopt.
Conversely, I have to agree with you with the Web app spam. The web's advantages doesn't really make it a silver bullet. There are a host of applications out there that just make you stop and say "Wow, really?" Maybe we've reached the level when the market for web apps is truly supersaturated-- but I think we could make a little room for cool things like Google Wave. ;)
~Goose
AntiHero
September 16, 2009 at 1:15pm
That's basically the point we're reaching these days. Check out Flock, the Mozilla browser about ALL social networks. There is a button on the URL bar that actually is meant to email links to people, the Facebook chat function is on the browsers bottom at ALL times, there is a Youtube media bar that can be turned off and on with keybinds. Also can have twitter and facebook updates on another function on the side. The only thing this browser is missing to be the "Ultimate social browser" would be to have something like pidgin natively installed, and since it's made by mozilla, someone will come up with a plugin for this to be a possibility.
The internet nowadays is basically a Cloud based database of everybody's lives, with Facebook, Twitter (Which i am guilty of liking, but i don't put anything important up there) I know people that post every second of their lives on Facebook and document it with pictures and "notes" to completely put their lives out there on a not so secure website.
Social networking is useless as can be, and the world is taken over by useless technology as usual. Cell phones are now meant for social networking, email and text messaging. Phoning someone is a lost art, which is what cell phone is, a telecommunications device, numbers on the front of it, and a reciever, it sends sound from one end to the other, however nobody knows this anymore and acts surprised when they get a phone call, but can't be bothered to lift their heads up to stop texting, updating facebook with whatever stupid puckered lip picture of someone they claim to be a best friend but will be hated in a week, and the story behind it.
Making the internet available on phones is making this whole situation about making as much uselessness out of Web 2.0just that much more successfull.
I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.
Print
