Google Official Rebuts Microsoft's Cloud Critiques

<i>I think it's definitely a myth that you can get a richer client-side experience with thick-client software than you can with Web-based software. If you asked me that same question four or five years ago, I'd say you're absolutely correct. If you ask me that question now, I'd point to a variety of the applications that are out there that are built in HTML5 and have tremendously rich client-side experiences. The benefit beyond the tremendously rich client-side experience is you don't have to download anything. </i><p>Is this true? For really rich client apps don't you have to download substantial amounts of Javascript/CSS/HTML? Once you factor out the respective runtimes (browser/CRT/JVM/CLR), what is the size delta for comparable applications?<p>IL tends to be denser than code. But HTML/CSS push a lot more to the runtime than most code/runtime combos do (Silverlight and Flash probably being the two big exceptions).<p>I guess my uber question is are we really moving to a thin client world, or are we moving to a world with a really huge runtime, data in the cloud, and non-trivially sized apps that still get downloaded?

Isn't 'not having to download anything' becoming a bit meaningless now? Rich web apps do download plenty, and signing up on a web form isn't any simpler than a couple of clicks to download from an app store. The fact that Google thinks the Chrome app store is worthwhile only emphasizes this.<p>I think that in this case, ease of use arguments are pretty arbitrary - the key question is who manages the data and who has access to it, and to me that seems to depend on the particular application. I see absolutely no reason other than the increased control given to Google that we shouldn't have both types of application so we can make these choices for ourselves.