Google launched Gears last May, and for the first year of its release it was considered a minor, niche product that a few developers and users may take advantage of to allow offline access to web applications. You can probably recall the arguments at the time: who needs offline access, connectivity is everywhere anyway, not enough apps will support this etc. It wasn’t until a year later and only a few weeks ago, that Google revealed its ace card: Gears-powered messaging for MySpace that is super-accelerated. Google had entered the race to provide the new web API, and for a year almost nobody had noticed.
The browser of the future is likely to become the virtual machine that hosts almost all applications. In this scenario the operating system becomes transparent, so Microsoft has something to protect (the source of its profits), as does Adobe, who currently provides the most common and consistent web virtual machine with Flash. Google has made no secret of its plans to target and harm Microsoft, and they know that the best way to go about that is to make the operating system irrelevant by moving up a layer and turning the browser into a standard, but powerful, virtual machine for applications.
It is hard to convey in a review how Gears can change and accelerate the functions of a web application. With browser-based Javascript, functions in MySpace such as listing and sorting emails or filtering through a list of friends felt very slow; the loading bar would freeze as the hourglass spins while your browser makes multiple requests back to the server. With a quick install of gears, a click on a confirmation box and a couple of seconds of loading time, the same functions that would previously almost drive a user insane now feel like they are part of the browser itself. What Google showed us Gears could do with the MySpace integration woke almost everybody up to the true intention of the product: this was no longer about offline browsing, but a shot aimed directly at Adobe and Microsoft.
At last count, Google had a suite of 28 different web-based applications, all being used by millions of people all over the world. The technology they use to implement their web applications has always been standards-based HTML, CSS and Javascript. The choice of Ajax may be because it is simply the best solution, but it may have more to do with the fact that almost every alternate web development technology stack is produced and controlled by a direct competitor. Google strongly backed the development of the open source Firefox web browser and supported open web standards as their technology stack of choice. They did this because their web applications depended on it, and a weak Firefox could possibly result in a revived Internet Explorer that would hand over control of the web back to Microsoft.
Previously, using only browser-based Javascript to power web applications wasn’t a problem for Google. That was, until their competitors took a step forward and released their respective second generation web platforms in the form of Flex/AIR and Silverlight. Microsoft and Adobe had taken a big step forward in terms of what could be done with web based applications, with desktop-like interfaces and functionality. It wasn’t going to be too long before competitors big and small would be using competing technology platforms to build competing applications that would make the Google app suite look like it was stuck in the 90’s.
The choice for Google was clear: either give up on browser-based Javascript and standards development and take up one of the new technologies, or stick with it and progress the core web technologies forward to the point where they are a viable alternative. The problem for Google was that while there were new standards and planned browser features that would soon introduce rich web technologies, the progress in developing these standards was so slow that it would be years before they would see wide-spread adoption. The new HTML standard, HTML5, was specifically aimed at extending the capabilities of web applications within native browsers, without the need for an added proprietary runtime. Those same functions and other additions would form the basis for the new Google web API.
With slow standards development blocking the path to better and faster, yet still free and open web application development, Google decided to take on that market itself through Google Gears. The idea was simple: bring forward the features of tomorrow’s web technologies into today’s browsers. The specific features mostly came from the new HTML5 specifications that standards bodies had been spending years working on. Instead of waiting for them to hit production, Google simply implemented them as best they could by extending the browser through a plugin. They would sacrifice standards in the short-term (and essentially ‘figure it out later’) in order to bring their web applications up to a rich next-generation standard from where they could stand up to Flash and Silverlight.
Gears would be developed by a group of 30 or so developers as part of the open source group in Google. In an ironic twist, the group is led by Vic Gundotra, who prior to Google led developer evangelism at Microsoft. The small group of developers set out to mark out and preserve Google’s interests in Javascript and an open browser virtual machine. On paper they would seem out-gunned by the larger groups and budgets that Microsoft and Adobe were pouring into their respective platforms. To help boost their case, they have detached Gears from Google (literally also – the project is now called just ‘Gears’) and released the code under an open source license.
The first release would focus on a few features proposed in HTML5 that were considered most important: client-based structured and object storage. Because of the choice to implement client-storage first, Gears would be framed as an offline application solution for the next year, which if not intentional, certainly served them well as competitors likely didn’t notice the broader goal. Google could have developed and released their own browser, there was speculation and rumors in blogs stating exactly that, but the browser market was competitive, tedious and generally a pain. Besides, even after having developed a new browser they would have to wait for critical market mass while they drove users to adopting it, and there would still be the other 70, 80 or 90 percent of the market not using their browser who might still want to use Google apps.
The shortcut was to skip past the browsers and add a new layer above them – the Google web layer. All the popular browsers provide mechanisms by which developers can extend their functionality, so all Google had to do was to developer a plugin for each browser. It could have its new web API on potentially 100% of desktops without asking users to switch and most importantly, in a manner much faster and less painful than entering the browser market. Browsers would now do all the boring bits: rendering HTML, presenting an interface, user options etc. while Google leveraged what was there and dashed ahead.
Today Gears supports a whole host of new features, some that it has in common with the other next generation web API efforts from Microsoft and Adobe while others are a result of their own innovation. Function calls available to developers include background processes (no more hourglass), client-side image manipulation, location-awareness, better file uploading and a local database inside the browser.
There are two sides to the adoption of a new API and development platform: one side is user support, and in this case it requires a plug-in to be installed; the other side is developer support, and with Gears it couldn’t be easier as the applications are the same as any other in using browser-based Javascript, it just provides developers with a whole lot more they can do in the browser. Javascript and web developers have nothing new to learn and users are only a plug-in away (with the inevitable upcoming bundling deals, not even that). It took Flash 5 or 6 years to become common enough for developers to target it with confidence, with Google backing it, Gears could take less than half that time.
In this race Google has nothing to lose but a lot to gain, and in a single shot has kick-started the standards-based and open-source alternate new web API. Unlike their competitors they don’t have an interest in controlling the platform nor directly profiting from it. They are instead seeking to maintain the current status quo: Javascript in the browser for most applications and Flash or another alternate when you need just a little bit more.
It has been a long time since the last platform war, but each time that technology experiences one you can see the biggest companies fall and the smallest companies prosper. Add open source to the equation and the result may still be that no single company dominates. With so much at stake and such large companies involved, we are surely about to witness a long and protracted battle. Only time will tell if the Google approach to taking the web forward will work.
This post is part of a series written by Nik Cubrilovic on the Next-Gen Web, read other posts here.
“It is hard to convey in a review how Gears can change and accelerate the functions of a web application.” …and you used so many words trying.
i thought Web WAS/IS the platform! are we back to desktops again? ihate this..
“They would sacrifice standards in the short-term (and essentially ‘figure it out later’) in order to bring their web applications up to a rich next-generation standard from where they could stand up to Flash and Silverlight.”
This sounds a lot like what Microsoft and Netscape did back in the day. The race to market totally fucked over the users and in the end we were left with non-standards compliant crap.
“Unlike their competitors they don’t have an interest in controlling the platform nor directly profiting from it.”
If you believe this you are a fucking idiot. If you don’t, you published it, so you are still a fucking idiot.
haha… smart ass
You could use a proofread or two.
Gears link is not working.
Very well written article. Brings to light the implications of Gears for all parties involved in a very direct and straight forward manner.
The question to ask then is, will Google be the solution to all our chained-to-a-platform-vendor issues that have plagues us in the past? Or is it just another paltform-vendor seeking domination that is forced to use the disguise of open source to to appease the blog-mob.
Cool article.
What is missing is the integration with a macro tool like iMacros
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3863
@6: Google’s made it clear they have no desire to compete with the web:
http://gearsblog.blogspot.com/.....dards.html
and their actions (such as open-sourcing it, submitting other standards like geolocation) have shown they really are interested in keeping it open.
Who writes this crap? Does it pay well or what?
#10. you’re a troll.
This was the best article on Techcrunch in years. A new insight - and totally on the mark.
“Function calls available to developers include background processes (no more hourglass), client-side image manipulation, location-awareness, better file uploading and a local database inside the browser.”
Nik - you honestly think this is all you need to compete with Microsoft? I guess if powering messaging for MySpace is the holy grail of applications, then maybe you’re onto something, but I just don’t see it.
Gears is a clever re-hash of technology using existing components, but calling this a platform from which to clobber competition is far-fetched.
@Danish — Gears is licensed under the BSD license, hardly a disguise. Plus, unlike Adobe and Microsoft, Google has everything to win by web-apps dominating (and even replacing) the desktop. I believe they are smart enough to realize that this domination will come from an eco-system of application providers targeting standards and/or technologies not entrusted to a single company, ala open source.
From both consumer and entrepreneur perspectives, times have never been beter — both MS and Google know this as well, but only one is happy about it and actually pushing developments to ensure the good times continue
actually — I thought this was fairly well-written and made sense generally (a little wordy in places, but ok). Nothing like that disaster of an article titled “Plan B”.
Hurray! Right on. Who said there is not enough competition (search) in the valley to drive innovation? This is going to drive it like crazy. Two things are important to think about though …
1) To run the above on a satisfactory level for the broad masses we need better browsers (stability, performance and standard support). Otherwise it will turn into a mess of crashing redundantly build systems
2) I am afraid this move might drive the gorilla back in it’s cave in terms of true IE standards support. It’s still is a dominant force and can leverage it’s power of being on (almost) every desktop (just check what Outlook has recently done to E-mail marketeers in terms of HTML standard support
)
Gears provides some backend stuff, but where are the front-end goodies? SVG for browsers that don’t support it yet?
Part of Flash / Silverlight is rich user interfaces. Flash UIs tend to look like crap but I’ve seen some *really* good Silverlight user interfaces that I would love to do in JS + SVG and support more than 1 browser.
peter must refresh techcrunch about 100x an hour - he comments on every post - luckily no more videos
is this nik the same one as the one from omn-idrive?
Thanks for the interesting posts so far. I figure most of the people posting on this wall may know what its like to have a little bit of the entrepreneurial bug. Does anybody here run a small business or is currently in a start-up? Are you hoping to grow to the size of a Google, a Microsoft, an apple, a Nintendo, a TechCrunch? You might want to check out how the Natural Laws of the the universe and an understanding of quantum physics can really mentally train and condition you to rise to success like that of a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergei Brinn, etc. Check out this site more some tips:
http://www.readtheanswer.com/index.php?rta=blog
The article is a bit long. Here is my rewrite.
Only time will tell if the Google approach to taking the web forward will work.
Done.
vic will be on WorkFast.tv next Friday live and will take your questions at 10 am Pacific Time.
Nice writeup Nik. I’m keen to see some of the location features in the API. Offline webapps are nice, but I can live with out it.
Good try, but the desktop will prevail, including the “desktop” on your cellphone.
Just wanted to add that the Mozilla guys have their own offering: Prism which (AFAIK) pretty much attempts to do the same thing.
Tom
I have decent share of web app development using both HTML/Javascript (http://www.quark.com/products/server7/) and Silverlight (http://www.podtech.net/home/4892/whats-new-quarks-using-silverlight) and I know what it takes to develop against them.
A part of me agrees that client framework for cloud computing should be non-proprietry yet supported by a big company. This promises low cost of development from tool and deployment standpoint. Although I would argue that lack of a good development tool seriously hurts adoption of HTML, Javascript and CSS as programming environment.
I am looking forward to such a tool from Google (who else has best interest) that would reduce the cost of entry for new developers into HTML/Javascript world.
@22: You’re a bit wrong there, Thomas.
Prism is all about putting websites on the desk-top without having a developer explicitly do so.
Oh yeah, I went there. “desk-top,” baby.
Strictly from a tech perspective, if you think that Google Gears can compete performance-wise with Silvelight…your out of your mind. Silverlight is compiled into IL and blows away Javascript/Flash based sibling code by factors of 10x.
Firefox and IE 8 improve Javascript performance in double-digit percentages in some cases, but that doesn’t even come close and Silverlight 2.0 is in beta 2 still
Furthermore, MS’s big advantages here are they own C#/.NET/XAML standards…they are not confined in working with new standards or have to worry about HTML 5 or if Firefox 3 will improve Javascript performance. They can control it and evolve it MUCH faster than changing internet standards. Like .net or not…it is still agreed even among Java/C++/Ruby/Python developers that .net has the best/productive IDE in Visual Studio.
It is still a plugin… Unless there is a killer app, why would any user(leaving aside the ever-curious developer community) install it?
Adobe Flex is a different story. People already have flash installed(for Games, Music Players, YouTube etc) on their machines(penetration rate being around 99%). All Adobe had to do was abuse its power, and add a whole rich-client API to the simple player. Not that I’m complaining
I’m happy that at least Adobe isn’t pushing the AIR runtime secretly with the player updates so far.
I think there are acouple of other significant points about Gears.
1) Unlike Silverlight/Flash you can run an AJAX/Gears application without Gears as long as you don’t need offline access. In other words you don’t have to have plugin to use it, it just gives you extra features.
2) Unlike Silverlight/Flash you include any other plugin content in an AJax/Gears applications. Imagine a Silverlight “word processor” trying to embed some Flash. To me this is one of the most important and often overlooked advantages of HTML/AJAX
3) While the article more or less states this, while Gears itself is not a standard, the application you write with it is standards based so really only a tiny layer (that is optional functionality) is not.
I truely believe that Gears is the missing link in making HTML/AJAX a platform that can deliver a desktop-like experience. I don’t think we have seen anywhere close to the limits of this platform as of yet.
Thank you; very informative.
The only question I really have is how this will all play out. There is clearly very little ‘ad revenue’ to be had thus far, and the you pay nothing on the development side of things, and no one (Flash / Flex / AIR, SilverLight, Gears) is charging the users.
I keep expecting the hammer to drop, and someone to tell me that I’m going to have to start paying for all these web apps.
Also, I thought I would point out that there’s a spelling error in paragraph 10, second sentence: “all Google had to do was to developer a plugin”. Should be ‘develop’.
#28 never heard of Eclipse, I guess.
“To help boost their case, they have detached Gears from Google (literally also – the project is now called just ‘Gears’) ”
This is a great step in marketing that it can avoid much resistence from other big players
you guys have absolutely know idea where the web is going. Unless your living in a cave, from which it really sounds like you guys are, the future of the web lies in extremely RICH visually captivating experiences. That means Javascript and HTML will need to literally evolve several generations to catch up with Flash/Silverlight.
When you finally see an amazing flash/flex or Silverlight RIA (rich internet application) you will realize that HTML/Javascript just doesn’t cut it.
Gears is nothing special, you wanna see an amazing offline sync architecture take a look at MESH (http://www.mesh.com) its so good that it’s been licensed to Apple for there upcomming mobileME platform.
The future of the web lies in RICH UI’s and UX’s. Apple proved this with there software (beautiful, yet simple UI’s) and now the technologies like Flash/Silverlight are going to bring that same model to the web. (ps. FLASH is only going to try to improve itself because of the beating Silverlight is giving it) ….
Before you write this crap do some real research!
@Jose, its kind of hard to take you seriously you mistake “no” for “know” in your first sentence. You have a clear Microsoft slant, which also diminishes your input. Instead of throwing up claims about Silverlight giving Flash a beating, please provide some independent references that supports your claims.
Anybody with half a brain already knew where Google was taking Gears. Welcome to yesterday Techcrunch.
Sean - I didn’t know. I guess I’ll go air out my half-brain today, get some oxygen.
Google sure is beating M$ on search, but taking on SilverLight w/ what, GEARS? That’s like trying to race a BMW w/ a Corolla. Like Jose said above, HTML/JAVASCRIPT need some MAJOR renovation b4 they can be the 1st class RIA platform. Let’s face it: RIA is about bring desktop UX online instead of dumbing desktop apps down so that web apps don’t look that lame any more.
Mr Picky - spelling, come on you can do better then that! As for thrashing flash I say it in the nicest of ways because competition is good. And the proof you seek regarding thrashing? Just do a search on the word silverlight and you’ll see just how popular that word has become! Not only is it a hit in the marketing sense, any developer that is clued up will tell you that the technology is amazing.
I may be Microsoft slanted BUT thats because I’ve choosen that path and wasn’t forced into it. I did my research and found a future in it.
Try making some good arguments next time!
@Jose “That means Javascript and HTML will need to literally evolve several generations to catch up with Flash/Silverlight.”
You realize that most Silverlight apps are written in Javascript, as are Flash apps? (well EMCA script). They also use the same HTML.. its just that you also have the option of either MXML or XAML (and guess what you control those with, yep, Javascript!).
This is going to all be about developers - and you can see that in the way the respective platforms are marketed. All three (Flash, Silverlight, Gears) are a short step away for the millions of developers currently working with Javascript (why do you think the Silverlight CLR supported Javascript before anything else?).
So when you say something like, Silverlight is better than Javascript, it just sorta demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.
I actually think Silverlight is very cool, I was there when they launched it and talk to everyone on the team including Guthrie. See my post, ‘Silverlight - The Web Just Got Richer’ from over a year ago:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007.....ot-richer/
I also think the stuff Adobe are working on is pretty cool too (although I do prefer plain-text XAML over a binary SWF file - but I know Adobe have a whole lot more they are working on and its simply a developers preference at the moment)
That said, developers are very lucky at the moment in that there are so many choices and because of the competition, we are seeing costs go down and more transparency and openess (eg. Flex is OSS, Silverlight has source available and lotsa API/runtime docs)
You can build a flash+flex or AIR or silverlight or .net desktop app without spending a single dollar. You can download the SDK’s and plug them into your own IDE.
So the competition is good for everybody, esp developers. We are finally seeing a return to the days of free dev tools and interpreters/compilers. Instead of QBASIC you now have a full .NET runtime and SDK.
@13. Jro “Nik - you honestly think this is all you need to compete with Microsoft?”
No its not, but its a good start. They prob aren’t even 5% done (SVG, WebForms, the remainder of HTML5 etc.). SVG is coming along nicely
@25 Kapil. “Although I would argue that lack of a good development tool seriously hurts adoption of HTML, Javascript and CSS as programming environment.”
True in a sense, esp when you compare to Visual Studio. Adobe is using Eclipse as a foundation for the Flex IDE, and with IBM and various other large org’s behind Eclipse it will only get better and better. Many HTML+JS developers don’t have a solid dev background, so thats why their dev routine is often text editor + browser + print debug. They need to adapt to the IDE/debugger/test suite paradigm. There are literally dozens of IDE’s for JS, HTML, PHP etc.
@28. “Strictly from a tech perspective, if you think that Google Gears can compete performance-wise with Silvelight…your out of your mind. Silverlight is compiled into IL and blows away Javascript/Flash based sibling code by factors of 10x.”
Very true. Mozilla is getting close with the Tamarin engine, which will be part of Mozilla 2.0. It is based on the Adobe JIT JS VM that they donated to Mozilla:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._engine%29
“Like .net or not…it is still agreed even among Java/C++/Ruby/Python developers that .net has the best/productive IDE in Visual Studio.”
Couldn’t agree with that more.
@29. Hassan “It is still a plugin… Unless there is a killer app, why would any user(leaving aside the ever-curious developer community) install it? Adobe Flex is a different story. ”
Yes Adobe have a huge advantage as their VM is already everywhere. It took Flash 6 years to get to the point of being almost everywhere, and both Microsoft and Google will have to work a lot faster than that. I don’t think Silverlight or Gears will be plugins forever though.
@30 magixman.
Exellent points, I hope everybody read your comment.
@32 Stephen. “The only question I really have is how this will all play out. There is clearly very little ‘ad revenue’ to be had thus far, and the you pay nothing on the development side of things, and no one (Flash / Flex / AIR, SilverLight, Gears) is charging the users.”
I read a post last week on Slasdhot where somebody said there is no more money to be made in IDE’s and dev tools - I think that couldn’t be further from the truth. The model here isn’t to charge end users, but to sell and license tools, servers, associated products (expression studio, adobe apps). Spending $1500+ per seat for an IDE and tools is nothing when you compare it to the productivity gains
I really enjoyed reading this. I don’t believe all of it though.
Some of you guys are just so rude to each other though.
For God’s sakes, it’s just an article, an opinion.
Be nice!
This post could be boiled down to 1/3 its size if not less.
Ye I think I might just delete comments that don’t contribute to the discussion. With everyone swinging at each other it doesn’t exactly welcome people to comment with something useful.
Google Gears is great and things like that are going to blow up in the next year or two, Google seems to have the advantage over Air and other offerings because it seems to have the biggest install base but I’m not sure if people will really realize that they need it until they are offline.
This is by far one of the best posts i have seen on TC, good work Nic.
Though, this strategy by google is not a new one. It something they do whenever they are the underdog. How do you gain an upper hand over someone who has dominance over the market? Simple, by going open source. THat way developers rally around your product and your costs of development are much lower.
Replicate that strategy, and you could gain the upper hand.
My 2c
More thoughts,
I have to agree with one of the commentators. To say that Google does not want to profit from this is wrong. They do, but they are using the best strategy to beat the competition (Adobe/Microsoft) using the least amount of resources by making it open source. This is a strategic decision from them as to fight them with a closed source model would mean:
1. Tons of $$ investment in development
2. It would make it much more difficult for Google to actually, win. By using the open source model they are gaining an advantage. See my previous comment.
We also see Google doing something similar with the whole friend connect thing, they are fighting major players in the market. So the only way to gain a foot hold is to open source/open API’s. This is a strategic decision and does not indicate they they do not want to monetize. They most likely will, if they win that war.
This has to be one of the best articles that I read so far on the strategy of Google Gear to compete in the exciting RIA web innovation.