Joe Beda's EightyPercent.net

Fri, 18 Jun 2004

Defending the Rich Client8:00:58 PM

It probably goes without saying, but these comments are my own and don't represent any official position by Microsoft.

There has been an interesting discussion started by Jon Udell and continued by Joel Spolsky (discussed on Slashdot). In both of their articles/postings they have referenced the interview that I gave quite a while back for Scoble for Channel 9. Dare and Robert McLaws have also responded.  My buddy from high school, Vince Anichini, wants in on the action too.

Go ahead and read them if you haven't already and then come back.

Here is my summary so that Jon, Joel and everyone else can make sure that I'm reading them right. First, Jon is asking why anyone (and the "enterprise" specifically) would want to write a rich client (probably for any platform) above and beyond a web application. Joel takes this and runs with it -- saying essentially that the rich client is dead and that the Windows API is dying with a whimper. He also says that there are two camps of developers inside of Windows: those that want to keep on the same track and those who are for all the new technologies.

IE history

Being on the Windows team, and Avalon specifically, my job is to help write a product that is compelling enough to overcome the very valid concerns that these guys have. I started out on the IE team (now you know where at least a little bit of the IE team went, Joel) back in 1997 -- toward the tail end of IE4 development. I firmly believe that we had the better product starting with IE4 and we really turned up the heat with IE5. IE was, in a lot of ways, a rear guard action against Netscape. Netscape was trying to replace the Windows API with a cross platform "Netscape" API.

IE was, buy many metrics, very successful. First, we gained significant adoption. I personally think that this was mostly due to a superior product.

Second, we also, by making the browser market a 2 horse race, drove baseline interoperability in the web space. Where would the world be without IE? Do you think that we would have an interoperable browser space now? Based on pure psychic reasoning, my guess is that without the healthy competition from MS, Netscape would have owned the client space completely. At this point I don't think that anyone owns the web client platform. Despite IE's market share, the network addressable platform pieces that anyone uses are largely restricted to the W3C blessed parts. So, taking a look at the IE4 and IE5 timeframe, in some ways you can thank Microsoft for enabling a mostly standards based web by making the browser a two horse race.

Where IE wasn't successful was in bringing the Web model in as a fundamental part of the Windows API. Sure, you had the reusable browser control and the Trident (mshtml.dll) engine. But you were either writing a web-like application (HTAs included) or you were writing a Win32 application. There were certain things that were easy to do with traditional Win32 that you couldn't do with IE and things that you could do easily with IE that you couldn't do with Win32.

The best of windows and the best of the web

Avalon, and Longhorn in general, is our attempt to reenergize the rich client at Microsoft. Is it, as Joel says, too late? I don't think so. I think that the combination of features we are putting together will be compelling enough to start turning the tide. Are we ever going to see a world where the web is history and all development is focused on writing Longhorn applications? Of course not. Longhorn is a long term investment to start laying the ground work for a rich client that takes advantage of the web in a way that we have never been able to before. This is what we mean when we say that we want to make Avalon the best of Windows and the best of the Web. We want to take some of the advantages of the web and build them in to the windows API.

Why do people write web based client/server apps over writing rich client apps for Windows?

  1. Frictionless deployment story
  2. Cross platform interoperability
  3. More fun to code -- you can set up your own API system and abstract HTML to a large extent
  4. Built in network/server awareness

You put all of these together and you have a pretty darn compelling story for many scenarios. How can the Windows client compete with this? The key is to take the good things of the web that we can (1, 3 and 4) and combine that with all of the goodness from having stuff run on the client. Don't get me wrong -- I still believe in the web as a way to interoperate and exchange content and as a lowest common denominator for UI interaction. But we can do so much better than HTML with the horsepower that is sitting on our desk when it makes sense to do so.

For example, Joel says that he can "install" GMail by hitting Ctrl-D, gmail, Ctrl-Enter. My understanding (and I haven't had time to really play with GMail yet) is that Google has written browser specific code to enhance the user experience.

With Avalon you should be able to implement a GMail like application that takes advantage of the rich client in some very significant ways:

  1. Rich user experience.  No page refreshes on simple actions.  Smooth animation and graphical composition.  The ability to do rich real time data visualization.
  2. Local Storage. Cache the mail data locally for faster access and more integration with other desktop services.  You could also support reading and responding to mail while offline.
  3. Easy network connectivity.  Using web services, the ability to use widely interoperable protocols to talk with a server.

Will this be possible in Longhorn? YES. This is the direction that we want to go and what I mean when I say "network connected rich client applications." We aren't replacing the web or the web paradigm. We are instead providing the platform so that it is easy -- and worthwhile -- for developers to differentiate when their applications are running on Windows.

But what about the enterprise?

Now, to get to some specific points brought up in the articles. Jon brings up some good points around the enterprise space. I can only say that we are working hard to build a package of features on the client that will either make enterprise developers willing to standardize on Longhorn or take the extra cost to provide a rich client solution in addition to a web based solution. There are some applications where this will never make sense.

However, there are a set of applications that are currently being implemented on against today's web clients that could be vastly improved by rich client capabilities. I can definitely see a need for a rich expense reporting application with a good offline mode and rich display and reporting. Anything that involves charting or graphing can also be enhanced by using some rich client technologies. I use Outlook every day to do email. There is a web solution for Exchange called "Outlook Web Access" (OWA) that uses DHTML and all of the other web goodies to provide as good an experience as possible through the web client. While I think that OWA is great and I'm a huge fan of what those guys are doing, I'd still much rather use the real Outlook.

With Avalon we are hoping to make it vastly easier to write rich data connected applications like Outlook. However, we don't want stop there. We also want developers to be able to get the best of the web. These applications can run in the browser for the browser experience or can be "one click" installed and run on the desktop.  Even when they are "installed" they can be managed from the server and be kept up to date as easily as copying a new version on to the server. Think of how many enterprise LOB apps could benefit from that? Expense reporting (with offline mode), "Digital Dashboard" data aggregation and visualization, integrated content creation, new network connected collaboration applications and more. 

Backward compatibility

Now, talking to some of Joel's points: He says that we have fundamentally changed our view of backward compatibility. I totally disagree. As one Slashdot poster put it: "Joel confuses binary compatibility with API compatibility." From the end users point of view we are still completely committed to making apps that run on Windows continue to run on Windows. At the PDC, Jim Allchin showed off Lotus 123 Visicalc running on Longhorn. The developer experience, however, will have a gap -- it is necessary as part of the transition to managed code. He states that VB.Net not being source compatible with VB6 is a first. I would argue that the switch from 16 bit to 32 bit is very similar to the switch from unmanaged code to managed code. Old apps will continue to run and new apps are written to the new technology.

In Avalon we are working very hard to provide rich ways for application developers to tie their old code in with new code that takes advantage of our new technologies. You can host a Win32 hwnd -- WinForms based or not -- in with Avalon content. You can also host Avalon content in a Win32 hwnd. You can nest these completely. While it is true that you have to write new code to get the new features -- and that the new code is part of a completely new framework -- we don't want to force application developers to rewrite everything to start using our stuff.

Above and beyond what Avalon has been doing, the C++ team has heard what the community has been saying and is doing some great work in Whidbey to make the managed version of C++ better than ever.  It will be the best solution for those who have the C++ code and skills and want to start taking advantage of the the CLR.

What's a $300B (market cap) company to do?

The real question is: What are we to do? Without arguing about the fine points, we are stuck with a choice. We can either continue adding doodad on top of doodad to Win32 (and maintain backward compat from an API and binary perspective) or we can try and make a fresh start with WinFX and set ourselves up for the future. Look at the timelines: Windows 1.0 with the start of Win16 came out in 1985. Windows 95, with the mainstream advent of Win32 came out in 1995. It is now 2004.

Now is the time for Microsoft to either watch the Windows rich client sail in to the sunset or to do its best to reinvigorate it. The only way to make this happen is to go "all-in" and think big. We want to empower developers by making a much richer, network connected and modern API for programming on windows. WinFX is all about taking what we've learned over the last 20 years and creating a solid platform for the next 20 years. We will provide the right API, backward compat for old applications and a great bridge between the two for developers. If we really want developers to write code that only runs on windows, we have to provide features and enticements that they can't get anywhere else. While I don't think that it is too late, I do think that we have our work cut out for us.

Write to Eightypercent AT Bedafamily DOT com - All opinions expressed are those of Joe Beda and not of his employer, wife or guinea pig - Copyright © 2003-2004 Joe Beda, all rights reserved