1) I go to the web to download the application.
2) Once I have the application I run it locally.
3) I encrypt and save the data back to "the cloud". Since I own the data, I can specify where to save it and the "web" becomes nothing more than distributed storage.
This is nothing I can't already do if I choose. We already have things like Silverlight applications, Java applications, Flash applications, etc. that all run client-side in the browser. Throw in ClickOnce deployment from Microsoft (which installs a .NET application directly to your computer by visiting a website and agreeing to the install), the linux app repositories, or even just the old "purchase and download" model, and I do not see how this proposal solves a technical problem we currently have - and if it is not a technical problem, then proposing a technical solution isn't going to solve it.
If I understand the intent, it is to prevent companies from owning the data that we create. Where the code executes does not seem to be relevant.
Also the idea of owning a social interaction yourself seems silly and inconsiderate to others. If you don't like facebook just delete your account
And personally, I do have the problem this attempts to solve. Whether this is the right solution to it I don't know. But the problem does exist.
Because there are genuine legitimate questions about how this infrastructure can support a lot of fundamental web application work flows and processes?
I'd welcome a future like that too, but I had the same reservations. Raising pertinent questions isn't the same as dismissing something.
Sure there are.
But before they are answered why not give them the benefit of doubt?
Do you like what they attempt to do? Then why not suggest how they could improve it?
I for one welcome a future where my social interaction isn't a product or service owned by anyone else but myself.
Why so fast to dismiss it?