I’m probably the biggest proponent of Web Services/Cloud Computing/whatever on the planet, because such, in theory, anyway, is the ideal platform for mobile computing going forward. And yet, I’m troubled: there are enough holes in this concept at present to give even rabid supporters pause.
The root of the problem is the fact that the Web was initially developed as a platform for publishing, not applications. Web 2.0, which many use as a term to describe social networking, should be more broadly applied to refer to support for all applications. And, indeed, there are many applications based on Web Services today. The reason this model is ideal for mobility is the limited scope of function in highly-mobile (handheld) subscriber units – small screens, small memory, and limited processor capability in the interest of optimizing battery life. There’s no way, let’s face it, that all of the applications and data required in a given usage scenario could be resident along the lines of how mobile PCs are typically used because of these fundamental device limitations. The icing on the cake is the write-once/run anywhere promise of browser-based computing. But if the Web isn’t reliable enough, then where do we go?
Why isn’t the Web reliable enough? I’m concerned about viruses, bots, phishing, outright fraud, and all of that. But the key problem here is that we remain in reactive mode; just look at the flurry of activity surrounding the recent and ongoing threat from Conficker. Why haven’t we built operating environments, both for clients and servers, that eliminate these threats? I worry about the fundamental lack of security inherent in a platform designed for publishing – and even publishing needs to be more secure and auditable. We’re witnessing the greatest shift in media and information since the invention of the printing press, which occurred around AD 1450. Hardcopy – newspapers, magazines, all of it, is dying, largely for economic and demographic reasons motivated by – you guessed it – the Web. Why pay for a newspaper when you can read the content for free on the Web? Why even advertise in a newspaper when you can reach a more targeted audience more effectively on – you guessed it again – the Web. I admit I get most of my information from the web, although I tend towards original sources and generate my own interpretations (that’s my job, after all). But I do worry when those original sources are unverified and unedited (and perhaps crafted by advertisers, not reporters, scholars, or editors) – who vouches for the accuracy of what I’m reading? Whose reputation is at stake? Suppose a hacker changes the content, and history is lost, or, at the very least, decisions are based on bad data? Not that we can necessarily trust print or broadcast media today, or even books. Reality is always subject to interpretation and even a philosophical debate; the Web increases the velocity of information, but not necessarily its reliability – and the Web might even be making things worse.
From a purely wireless perspective, I worry about coverage and the highly-variable nature of wireless throughput. While the carriers have the economic incentive (if not, at present, the economic resources) to address this ongoing challenge, such further calls into question the fundamental reliability of a Web-services-driven approach to IT. I remain convinced, for reasons noted above, that there is, ultimately, no alternative to this strategy. But we are at present much farther than we should be from making mobile Web Services a reality.
