Google Gears is Launched

Mister Inbetween writes "Google is rolling out a technology designed to overcome the major drawback faced by all web-based applications: the fact that they don't work without an internet connection. Google Gears is an open source technology for creating offline web applications that is being launched today at Google's annual Developer Day gatherings around the world."

For those who want to get started...

There are some sample applications available here [google.com] to help you get started using Google Gears. I found it pretty non-intuitive at the beginning but I think I'm starting to get the hang of it slowly.

Link?

Shouldn't there be a link to Google Gears in the article?
Or a CD-ROM?

Re:Link?

There is. It's on the first page, second paragraph. Click on the text that says "Google Gears". It will take you here:

http://gears.google.com/ [google.com]

Re:Link?

I was referring to the /. article. We don't RTFA here.

What's the Point

What's the point of having an offline web application?

You might as well create your own traditional app so that you don't have to deal with compatibility and security issues with a multitude of browsers and platforms. Or maybe the idea is doing something completely opposite to what Microsoft has been doing for almost a decade now, putting the browser functionality within the app.

Re:What's the Point

<sarcasm>

yes becouse traditional applications work everywhere regardles of platform

</sarcasm>

This is a wierd day, trolls modded interesting :/

Re:What's the Point

Web applications are inherently cross-platform-- the OS doesn't matter, only the browser. Also, they don't really require that you install anything or have admin privileges to install things, and they're accessible from any computer with an internet connection and web browser.

The downside of web apps is that you can't take them with you. Unplug from the network and you can't use them. I guess this might be a good step towards solving that problem.

Of course, whether this should all be built into web browsers, which were originally intended to store static pages, is an issue you could debate. Sometimes I think it might make more sense to make a browser-like framework for programs, but built from the ground up for applications instead of static pages. But then, I guess that more and more, that's what browsers are becoming.

Re:What's the Point

Why not just create a basic virtual machine client and load it with this fast, simple "Google OS"? The capabilities would be similar - it needs access to the local file system to store documents, and the app would run in a highly stable evironment that needs to do nothing but run apps.

Dude, I think you just described Java. ;-)

I hear Java Web Start even solves the problem of distributing app updates seamlessly. Not that I am a fan of Java for GUI apps as far as look and feel go, but it certainly meets to your requirements for a virtual machine and I'd probably take it over some of the HTML + JS shite that is out there.

Why is it that nobody can see that what everyone longs for was invented more than a decade ago. It is like the 900 gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

-matthew

Re:What's the Point

Because it is slow.

Compiled Java bytecode is a speed deamon compared to JavaSCRIPT.

-matthew

Re:What's the Point

Of course, whether this should all be built into web browsers, which were originally intended to store static pages, is an issue you could debate. Sometimes I think it might make more sense to make a browser-like framework for programs, but built from the ground up for applications instead of static pages. But then, I guess that more and more, that's what browsers are becoming.

You may want to check Adobe Apollo, a multi-platform runtime that allows you to create desktop apps based on: HTML/CSS/JS and Flash.

It has ability to store/read data locally and basically act as a normal desktop app, but it's inherently multiplatform, because it uses platform neutral technologies (even more so than Java and .NET managed to do so far).

Honestly I'm not sure how smart it would be to invest in Google Gears. You may want to deploy a Yahoo app.. and then what? Google's also known for their ton of search-unrelated projects which they abandon the next day.

For Adobe, Flash and Apollo is a deal maker/breaker: if they don't get it right, Microsoft and WPF/.NET/XPF/Expression will simply throw them out of business.

For Google, Gears is just something they did for fun in their 20%.

a point

Suppose that I, for example, run a small service-oriented business, with technicians and service trucks and customer appointments, in addition to the normal gamut of meetings and other internals. Suppose that some of these technicians are located in different towns.

Suppose that, because of geographic disparity, it becomes a pain in the ass to manage a central paper-based schedule and keep everyone on the same page. And suppose I find that the solution to this problem is to implement some sort of network-aware calender. And, that I want to be able to access and modify this calender by a variety of means, from standalone PalmOS devices to Windows boxen to WinCE phones, because the different techs, salespeople, and managers all have their own levels of technical ability and devices of choice.

And now, just suppose that something like Google Calender fits this bill and is put in service. Everyone knows where everyone else is, what they're doing later today (or next week). Scheduling a job can happen easily, and conflicts can be seen and avoided immediately. Life is good, and the paper schedule is forgotten (good riddance).

With me so far?

Good.

Now, suppose that the Intar-web is down, and Google Calender is unreachable.

Trucks stop rolling. Customers get angry about missed appointments. Jobs don't get done. And, the kicker: Nobody, except perhaps the stubborn old geek with an offline Palm Pilot, has any idea what anyone (including themselves!) is supposed to be doing. The company basically takes a vacation until connectivity is restored, which (in small business) means waiting as long as it takes for Time Warner or SBC to correct the problem.

Having offline web application support, if implemented well, can fix this problem. Even if new jobs can't be scheduled electronically, at least work on existing stuff can continue, as all that it takes is one person with Firefox on a desktop machine to pass out orders.

The worst-case, then, goes from having no data at all and a complete cessation of work, to at least having old data. A notepad and cell phones can then fill in the blanks for new jobs (just like it used to), which can be entered into the calender system once the Internet connection comes back.

Which is quite likely good enough.

That's the major problem?

And here I thought it was the hideous UI and sluggish, memory-sucking JavaScript. Now I know better.

Re:That's the major problem?

A UI is only as hideous as the UI designer has made it. I personally make amazing and intuitive UI using javascript, html and css. You'll never see them on the web though. You may see one in a Kiosk at a museum or on the back of an airplane in first class sometime though. They run locally via a browser pulling data from a central server but pulling UI assets and logic from a client side cache.

You can do some amazing things with today's Javascript libraries, DOM scripting, CSS manipulation and a SQL store. Look at Apple's Dashboard widgets, Konfabulator widgets, etc. for examples of what can be done (and yes when you turn an amateur developer base loose with easy to use tools, they'll come up with some pretty ugly and pointless things too).

BTW Javascript is only as memory sucking as the implementation, ie the browser in most cases. A good javascript engine will not leak memory like a sieve... and a good javascript library will minimize memory leaks even in a poor implementation.

Oooh!

And don't forget your Google Gear [googlestore.com], too.

Who Wants MORE Google?

The EFF said don't use Google Desktop because of vulnerabilities" "[We urge] consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password," the EFF said in a statement" http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1925064,00.as p [eweek.com] If Google is under pressure from some governments to hide things, from others to store and reveal things - why would people want more, more, more Google and their vulnerabilities on a computer? As bad as Microsoft is I would rather deal with the devil I still know then the Googlers who seem to want to be the center of the cyber-universe in a way that seems more grandiose than even M$. They lost me when the started censoring stuff here US never mind China.

DOS through a browser

Google is slowly reinventing the computer... to be a lot like what it was 20 years ago, except through a web browser. Just think, in the 1970s we all used ultra-thin clients called Teletype terminals to connect to mainframes. Then came the PC revolution, and soon we all had slower machines of our own. Then all those machines got as fast as mainframes, and we got the Internet, and started connecting to each other. Now we're going back to ultra-thin-clients connecting not to mainframes but to Google's giant server farm where they store all our personal data and promise not to abuse it. Nothing ever really changes, does it?

Honestly

As a web developer, I don't see the wide adoption of "offline web application". Why not just create a desktop app that talks to the webapp through web services when you get back the connection? I've looked into Dojo offline examples, but still can't think of any business scenarios around an offline web application. I guess like what the article suggested, for email and word or image processing makes sense...but then how often do we really need to implement an application like that? I'd love to read some other ideas using offline web applications from slashdotters.

Huh?

There are a number of web servers that are fairly tiny and run on PCs... Nothing stopping a stand-alone browser application from installing it's own web server...

Is this already possible?

IE had this feature for ages. HTA (HTML Applications) can be offline applications.
And now Firefox is getting the same feature.

Why do we need yet another plug-in.

Synchronization?

So, what about the millions of people who won't pay very close attention, and will type a bunch of stuff into Google Docs or whatever -- and fail to notice that their two-year-old unplugged the router? The web app keeps running and it indicates "App Offline" in the corner of the screen... they go to work and TEHOMG no document!

What then? At least right now it's all very clear: no internet, page doesn't load, check for the problem. Is it just me?

web apps suck

what the hell is the benifit of web apps if they just shift dependancy from the OS to the browser? all their achieving is creating slower more limited applications.

if we head in the direction of download first web apps.... how is this better then just downloading a compiled app? certainly not cross platform - you need IE or FF to run it.

Now that sounds like a killer app for the iPhone

The iPhone doesn't support desktop style apps. This could help bridge the gap if google / Apple were to support something like gears on the iPhone's browser.

Silly me...

Silly me, i thought the major drawback of web based applications was that HTML sucks for building rich applications.

So basically what Gears offers is the worst of both worlds. A terrible rich application dev environment (HTML + JS) combined with database concurrency headaches. Awesome!

-matthew

IBM...

Of course IBM rolled this [techtarget.com] out six years ago in the Domino server, although I don't really expect Google's offering to handle Replication/Save conflicts as well as Domino does. Of course, now that there is actually another product out, the anti-Notes trolls can start complaining that the 6 year old tech from IBM isn't using the same API that the brand new offering from Google uses.

Re:IBM...

Of course IBM rolled this [techtarget.com] out six years ago in the Domino server, although I don't really expect Google's offering to handle Replication/Save conflicts as well as Domino does.

From the sound of it, Google expects the developer to handle database synchronization issues. And in some cases, you actually have to duplicate your business logic in the browser in Javascript to make the app function offline at all. Ouch!

http://code.google.com/apis/gears/architecture.htm l [google.com]

I'm not touching this tech with a 10 foot pole. Internet access is getting more an more ubiquitous. In the not too distant future the entire concept of being "offline" will be all but forgotten. I'm much more focused on making web apps not suck when they are ONLINE. Who has time to worry about what happens when they are offline?

-matthew

No thanks

I cannot work without internet. How am I supposed to check slashdot from time to time?

Javascript for the desktop?

This is sad. As a programming language, Javascript makes Visual Basic look good.

The wierd thing is that we went through all this with Java almost a decade ago. "Gears" is supposed to do roughly the same things Java was originally supposed to do.

Java went in a strange direction. "Applets" in the browser were never very popular. Java desktop applications were not widely successful, although a whole office suite was written in Java. Java ended up being the replacement for COBOL; it's what runs the business logic on the server.

The real innovation in Gears is providing a local database, instead of files, as the basic storage medium. That's not new in the Microsoft world (many apps use Jet, Microsoft's little database), but the open source world is still mostly in the flat file era for local storage. SQLite gets you locking, atomic transactions, structured data, and search capability. And you can get at those files via SQL; you don't have to access them through Gears and JavaScript. We may see bindings to the Gears back end for other languages. The middleware portion of this may be more important than the browser-based user interface.

Incidentally, no one seems to have mentioned that Google has launched a replacement for SourceForge [google.com].

offline web apps

Thing is, I like the mozilla approach ( http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2007/02/offline-zimbr a-with-firefox.html [bluishcoder.co.nz] ) better. I think it's because there's no need to install 3rd party apps and such. But thing is, as it seems Google is ahead in this, and if people start adopting it (remains to be seen) then the mozilla approach probably won't stir too much water when it's released.
 

v.cool

I'm at the GDDAU and saw the demo, this is very interesting.

Dojo Offline?

How does this compare to Dojo Offline?

http://dojotoolkit.org/offline [dojotoolkit.org]

Another Beta?

Woo, another beta... yaaay...
Couldn't google make something that actually evolves out of the beta? I mean Gmail is STILL in beta according to the logo... 3 years of beta "testing"? Isn't that enough?

Palm Foleo?

It will be interesting to see whether you can use Google Docs offline with the Palm Foleo. The Foleo seems ideal for these kinds of apps.

java webstart + db4o is much better

With Java webstart, apps are automatically downloaded and updated, but if the connection is down, the application still runs. And the UI is fast, rich and responsive, unlike UIs in web apps.

For storage, db4o is a much better proposal than any SQL database; it shortens the development time by orders of magnitude.

Please leave the web browser as it was, i.e. a document browser; there is no need to bloat it with all these extras, when a better alternative is available.

What I'm waiting for is

Google Gears of War for the Xbox 360.

What's the point?

The whole advantage of thin-client web applications is you can access them from anywhere you have a browser. If you have to install software on machines then why not just install a proper application which will run lot faster and be more reliable.

Googlegear.com

This must be why google went after googlegear.com, I use to do a fair amount of shopping there at least till I heard about newegg.

Not cool name: TurboGears

This seems strongly to be poaching the name of TurboGears. Not friendly.

huh?

Google Gears is an open source technology for creating offline web applications

This just in, Google to conquer next the lucrative world of oxymoronic technology. Does their innovation know no bounds?

That's the biggest drawback?

In the world of cheap Broadband and Wifi the lack of a web connection isn't the biggest drawback is the reliance of a web browser acting as an Office suite. It's completely impracticable but Web 2.0 says we must do it anyway.

Thin-clients need not be this thin

We expect more from browsers. Off-line contents / history are not just enough to serve those purposes. It needs some more features like, access to storage and much sophisticated client-side control, much like client-side sand box models.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

Safari is supported. Opera support is coming soon.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

Did you or the mods read the GP link?

Google Gears works on the following browsers:

• Apple Mac OS X (10.2 or higher)
  • Firefox 1.5 or higher
• Linux
  • Firefox 1.5 or higher
• Microsoft Windows (XP or higher)
  • Firefox 1.5 or higher
  • Internet Explorer 6 or higher

Additionally, the team is working on supporting Safari on Mac OS X in a future release.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

I'm inclined to believe that CNet made the mistake. Google claims that it works on Firefox for OS X. My guess is that CNet either assumed that OS X support == Safari support or they decided to preemptively report the upcoming Safari support.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

It works by using a special browser plugin, which you must install before you can use any of the apps. That's cheating.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

So it looks like this is a browser plugin. Meaning that you'd need to install it with your web application. The API is reminiscent of the WHATWG Storage Specification [whatwg.org], but appears to be a bit more sophisticated in its reach. If I'm reading this right, the biggest difference is auto-syncing of the data with a server (when you're online) rather than having to write your own synching software.

Thus this appears to be a competitor to Adobe Apollo [wikipedia.org], but without Google defining their own container format.

Interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as it's not anything that hasn't been contemplated before. Personally, I'm hesitent to adopt anything that can't be used on a live webpage as well as downloadable "webapps". However, that may not stop others who have good ideas on how this might be used.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

It seems that Google Gears can be used for more than offline applications. It includes tools for running JavaScript in background threads to prevent UI blocking, as well as a SQLLite database for storage and fast retrieval of any data you want, whether you're working offline or not.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

It seems that Google Gears can be used for more than offline applications.

Yes, but you have to get the user to install the plugin and accept the security warnings. Only *then* will it be available to online apps.

The market has been avoiding plugins for a long time due to the difficulty of getting end users to install the plugin software. Even with the (relative) simplicity of Microsoft ActiveX install, it often turns off the users. As a result, there are only two plugins you can (mostly) count on: Flash and Java. And that's only because they're usually installed by default.

Anyone using this for online content is taking a pretty large risk unless they control the computers that run it. e.g. It might make sense in corporate settings were updates are pushed by a central server. But that's a much smaller portion of the market than, say, Google Docs.

Of course, I imagine that Google will try to make some of these issues go away by shipping the software as part of their Google Desktop and GTalk downloads. Combined with potential downloads for the desktop application versions of their webapps, Google may get a pretty good market penetration. In which case their solution will be awesome. (Yay!) Though still only a psuedo-standard. (Boo!) :-)

* IE7 has reversed that trend with plugin pages being blocked by default. Try their demos in IE7, and you'll find it to be less userfriendly than it should be.

pseudo-standards

Though still only a psuedo-standard. (Boo!) :-)

What you call a "pseudo standard" is how good standards are created: first you use and document a technology, then, after several years of practical use, you go to a standards body.

Unfortunately, these days, a "standard" seems to mean to many people a rubber stamping of some idea that some committee or engineers cooked up, with little or no practical usage. W3C is guilty of that, and ECMA even more so.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

It appears obvious to me, though I've been wrong plenty of times before, that this is another part of the puzzle for Google Docs. Once they've 'perfected' the system you won't have to worry about your link being up to be able to get to your docs. The next step is an intranet version for the enterprise. All in good time...

Re:Great idea.

I think this *is* a "sane way".

I think Java had some great goals; I don't think it worked as well as it was promised...

Will this follow Java in that? We'll see...

Re:Maybe im missing the point

Wow, brilliant, how about i just wait til i have a connection and use my web app then

and what about when your connection goes down? this guy [slashdot.org] made a good point regarding this in the 2nd half of his post.

Re:Mark said so...

I agree this cant happen soon enough, Google are the innovators now not tired old Microsoft, If I have to suffer through another lazy OS release or another incremental upgrade of Office, roll on Google desktop development. This cant happen soon enough in my opinion Webmaster, http://http//www.seowebsiteadvice.com [http]

Re:Who?

Well, if you were stocking CD-ROMs of Google then maybe you'd see the need.
I'd like to Google when not online, but can't seem to find a CD-ROM of it. :-)

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

<QUOTE>Am I the only one who thinks the Big 4 browsers should be supported, and not just FireFox/IE?</QUOTE>
Am I the only one that thinks websites should be coded to the standard and browsers that don't imeplement them can be left without?

Re:how is this better

Flash is the devil incarnate and Dojo might be evil as well, after all he sounds oriental. Google on the other hand, does no evil. [breitbart.com] So that's why its better.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

i simply do not understand this statement? is it about reaching the most users or about you having a bug up your ass?

It's about coding to the standards. Firefox, Safari, and Opera are all (more or less) standards compliant. It's quite easy to write code for all three of them. IE is NOT standards compliant, and has become a cancer upon the web. If enough sites start pushing neat features that IE doesn't support, users will begin upgrading to a better browser. (One that looks better, too!) That will either force Microsoft to fix their browser or make IE irrelevant.

Of course, that's just a pipe dream for now. But with neat stuff like Canvas, Storage, Event-Source, Video, and Audio showing up in the latest web browsers, it's tempting to pull the plug on IE for even a small portion of a site. Especailly sites that provide services to popular embedded devices like cellphones or the Wii.

Re:No Safari or Opera Support

Hmm... isn't it "Beta" software? Give them a chance to catch up to the real goods.