First off, I should probably come clean: Meebo doesn’t really suck. Actually, it is a very useful tool. However, the problem is that I can’t see it, or similar services, as anything more than a simple tool. Meebo is very useful if you are on a computer that you can’t install applications on – or would feel rude to install applications on, like if you are using a friend’s computer. Beyond that though, I see no reason to use it.

Meebo suffers from a major problem that I feel is pretty common among web-based applications: they’re trying to be … normal applications as opposed to taking advantage of what the web could provide. Meebo doesn’t reside on my desktop and should darn well act like it persists on a separate server.

Right now I am running a desktop application that does everything that Meebo does, plus extra features on top of that. It is no more difficult to use, with the exception that it does need to be installed – which isn’t a big deal, given that installing new programs is a pretty common thing for most computer users. Heck,  it even saves what services I use, login information, and what settings I have across any computer I use.

But what if, just maybe, when I closed my browser on a web-based IM application it just set me to ‘away’ but kept me logged in? What would happen if I were able to open the service on another machine, in another browser, and still have every conversation that was opened still open – with new messages that people sent me while I was away? Suddenly, web-based IM services would have a leg-up on desktop applications.

Admittedly, that would turn Meebo into a light version of Google Wave – which does exactly what I was referring to, and effectively hybridizes (casual) e-mail and IMing – but with the ability to easily connect to networks that people actually use.

So, that is my request for web-based applications: Make more use out of the web, don’t pretend you’re a desktop application, and just because I close the window you’re in doesn’t mean that I want you to stop functioning.

OnLive is an interesting concept. Basically, they will host games, including major AAA titles, use their computers to process everything going on, including the graphics, and then send that information to your machine-of-choice, which will display what is going on in the game. Likewise, you will input commands into the game like you would with any other, which will then send toOnLive’s servers to be processed in the game. In other words, it’ll be like playing a game on a computer a thousand miles or so away. The biggest problem with an idea like this is lag. However ,OnLive claims that they’ve spent a lot of time developing technology to combat just that, and have even worked with ISPs to get past this problem. The end result, they claim, is that you can play a game through OnLive with as little latency as you would notice on a LAN or less. Frankly, if that is true, that is extremely impressive. If it is true.

The benefits of something like this is the same as any digital distribution channel like Steam, but you also won’t need a powerful computer to play the best titles. The computer doesn’t need to do any of the processing, so if you’re sitting on a machine from five years ago, without a dedicated GPU, you can still play games like Crysis . This is also huge for Mac users, as anyone with an Intel-based Mac will be able to take advantage of games their platform would never see. Heck, Mac gaming could become a normal thing! It also makes me curious if Linux will get such connectivity at all, letting us band together in some creepy (but awesome)coombiyah-singing heaven of gaming, where platform doesn’t matter.

Again, that is if this actually works. I’m skeptical that they can actually do what they claim, but I would welcome such a system all the same. There are problems with it, even if it does work though. A number ofISPS (*cough*Comcast*cough*) have instituted bandwidth caps that could be quickly reached with such a system. If you use services like Netflix on top of this, you could be hitting that cap pretty quickly, I have no doubt. On top of that, you also won’t own any physical copy of the content. That means if the service ever goes down, so does your access to the game. While I certainly am a supporter of digital distribution, I still do realize that the lack of actual ownership is a very real problem. It may also get pricey as well. I would expect, at least, a monthly subscription for access to this, most likely on top of the cost of games. So, instead of paying for a few games a year, you’re paying for a few games and the ability to access them. While that price might well be cheaper than keeping a top-of-the-line computer, it might be a pain if you keep at least a decent one regardless.

As is, they apparently have nine third-party publishers interested in them, including big names like Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Atari, Take Two, and Warner Brothers. That is a pretty big sign that they might be able to pull something off, but time will tell on this one.