Nobody has requested a web version

[jordansparks]

We have a feature request system
http://www.opendental.com/manual/featurerequests.html
After nearly 1500 submitted requests, and even more votes and discussion, we still have never had anyone submit a request for a web version of Open Dental. I'm baffled by this. Is it another case of people not knowing what they're missing until they have it in their hands? Kind of like the epiphany I had the first time I saw a movie being played on an iPod and compared it to the massive 5 lb DVD player we were taking on the airplane before. I get this nagging feeling like the time to build a web version is very near. But then I see zero feature requests for it, and it tempers my enthusiasm. I'm not suggesting anyone submit a feature request unless they really want it. I'm just trying to figure out the inconsistency.

[khdilger]

I am in the market for a new PMS system. I would prefer a reasonably priced web software. I have looked at Denticon, I have researched ICE and Curve Hero. Denticon was okay, a little akward to use and I talked to previous users who said it was slow for treatment planning. Curve Hero looks great but I think the pricing is very expensive once you start adding on services like e-claims and other stuff. Also ICE and Curve Hero have no ability for a live demo by yourself with a guest login. I have tried to coordinate with both the companies to see a demo via web-x but its just been to difficult to find sometime, and besides who can learn anything by watching someone else work software. Its not their fault, they are calling me, I am just always somewhere where I can't do a demo and I am busy in the evening with other stuff. So if you do a web version make it possible to have a sandbox for users to play in.

I think that everything should go to SAAS for ease of data storage and management.

[Rickliftig]

Maybe it's just the dentist mentality Jordan. We're all control freaks, we know the importance of always having a backup plan (ie) spare handpiece, two autoclaves, backup vacuum pump), we like gadgets (ie. a server/network switch and cabling). And nobody wants to be the first and nobody wants to be the last.

In short, I think you're absolutely right - it's coming. I look forward to the day when my server is as much a relic as my zip drive cartridges (or tape drive for that matter). But in the short term, I think the due to the country's economics most practices will make do with their present system in order to save money. Add to this the fact, that the baby boom is still the big purchasing demographic - many baby boom docs are not especially comfortable with IT decisions.

This is going to change. Younger doctors will want electronic records and no one wants back up hassles. Plus, once you use a good system, you never will go back to paper charts or a one computer office.

So to answer your question, change will occur when:
1) there is a financial advantage to change
2) a new system does things that are essential (and have been missing) from an old system and the automation makes teh office run smoother
3) as a new generation takes over
4) a new system is significantly easier to use and train for

best,

Rick

[peterskuben]

Just posted Request #1410.... Web version of Open Dental.

Thank you Jordan!!!

[Rickliftig]

Ask and ye shall receive...

[alexei]

What is the difference? I'd like to think that I'm fairly experienced with using various programs, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what "web version" means.

[jordansparks]

Runs inside a browser.

[helliwell]

I'm one of those "boomers" and my only concern with web-based apps is that you have your database in the "cloud" under someone else's control. Am I mistaken? Like Rick said, dentists can be control freaks and when they're comfortable with a system that they've learned to use, it's tough to make that leap of faith to change without a demonstrable advantage! Maybe I'm not "tech-savvy" enough. I feel the same way about QuickBooks on the web, too!

[afeuer]

For all you control freaks out there... There is no way you could ever have the same level of security and redundancy using your own server and networking. These cloud services have huge computer farms with data and server redundancy over many locations throughout the country and maybe even the world. All you need to do is use strong passwords and everything else is taken care of. From there any computer connected to the internet with java or silverlight or whatever can use Open Dental. As long as the monthly hosting is a reasonable fee it should be a no brainer.

Another thought I have on the subject. To make the swich to web version worth it I would have to be able to completely get rid of my server. The only way I could do this is if apetryx went with a webversion also or if Open Dental developed its own image management software (hint hint).

There are many other advantages that a web hosted software has. For example think about how easy and inexpensive setting up multiple locations would be. Your IT bill (if you have one) would be drematically reduced. There are lots of others, I gotta go.

[jordansparks]

I don't think the IT bill would be reduced. People still need a network. And they probably still need a server. Dental software hosting isn't the only reason for having a server.

[xiaoguo_ge]

Are you planning to build the web version as a cloud? Cloud computing servers should be much more reliable than the a standalone server in the clinic. But the service as a whole can only be as reliable as the user's internet connection. How do you handle internet down time in the clinic? I've been thinking about building a similar service and had done some research. There seems to be no solution to this one problem.

I'd like to hear your opinion. Is this a real problem? Do I wary too much?

[afeuer]

have a backup internet connection... for example I can just tether my cell phone if I have to. Most business internet connections now have battery backups and are pretty reliable.

[djanash@mac.com]

Personally, I want to convert to OD SO BAD!, but I will wait for the web version so I can do multiple offices thing. Im ready when you are Jordan

[apollonia]

it is rare that our modern internet connections "go out" but it is common that they become painfully slow.

until we all have fiber optic (or equivalent) speed, we're always going to have local infrastructure to handle X-rays, photos, and other high res imaging.

there are additional advantages in having data on local servers, at least in my experience, web-hosting services rarely give you root access either to servers or more importantly to database systems.

my own (admittedly narrow) vision is a rich and varied "cloud" of web applications that interface with my own data running on my own server, with my own local OpenDental applications installed.

so i think the "webOD" is something that may come 20 years from now, but not sooner.

richer web service mashups..... NOW.

[apollonia]

think of "cloud software" and "local data" instead of "cloud everything"

how about if all the new features of OpenDental (not tweaks or bug fixes but really new or vastly improved features) were web-based, working from webservice access to OD.

that way, there need not be a total dependence on the web version, but a "line in the sand" can be drawn to stop duplication of effort in new service development.

each user would have the choice of using browser-based features, or not, depending on their desires.

once the door is open, outside developers could easily add features and utilities that could further enrich the user experience.

[wjstarck]

You make some excellent points. We have Verizon FIOS fiber here (2 MB up, 15 down), and it's by no means a panacea. The reality is, bandwidth is throttled routinely by the upstreams no matter what they tell you (because service subscriptions are oversold), and so a pure web based service will have issues from time to time, and as you say, images will continue to be the Achille's heel for multiple offices until the technology for sharing them across multiple locations is more mature...

[apollonia]

here's my own personal paranoia.....

i see TREMENDOUS liability issues with losing my patient data (not to mention the economic harm).

does that make me a control freak? i'm not so sure.

just sounds prudent to me to keep my vital data in house (at least my malpractice insurance will protect me from my own malfeasance).

a web version of practice management system would seem to have unlimited liability, ne c'est pas? unless i have a backup of data and also a viable software vehicle to access it.....

at that point, we're back where we are, except at least i now don't have to worry about OpenDental adopting Facebook's privacy policies

[peterskuben]

Biggest advantage of a web version is that you can use it on any device.............Windows, Mac, Linux, Your mobile phone, iPad...basically anything you haven't even thought of...you could use Open Dental if it were in a web browser.

[paulgordon]

We have been using a hosted server for over 5 years now. With all the 'improvements' in MS and hacking, trying to secure a multi location database application is beyond my skill set. Further, I don't have to worry about new servers and operating systems, its part of the monthly fee. Further, if the server breaks, its the hosting company's problem, not mine.

This is not a 'web application' that we are using, however, our data is not even local. We are in Cleveland, the data is in the suburbs of Detroit. It works great, backups are managed as are firewalls and mlps architecture.

I would not mind a web based app, just be sure to fax me the HIPAA form that says your secure and I am ready!

[marpesg]

Are you thinking web version = software as a service (dentist doesn't have a server but pays a fee to have it on a server elsewhere) or web version = dentist has a web server in addition to the database so that clients just need a browser?

It would require some serious security to offer SAAS. Having a web server within the office might be more doable, but when your number of clients is relatively small I'm not sure you'd see a huge benefit, especially if performance takes a hit. I work for a software company that develops enterprise asset management software with sites that have 3000+ users (my dad's the OpenDental user). We went to a web based product, but it's much slower than client/server. If you're hosted it is even slower. In the end we also ended up requiring nearly as much RAM on the clients as we did in the first place.

I'd try a beta anyway...

[jordansparks]

Why would the security need to be higher if we were hosting it rather than the dental office? Wouldn't the level of security need to be exactly the same? And if our security were slightly better than the security available at the dental office, wouldn't that be an advantage of SaaS?

But to answer your main question, we have been moving forward with our web service as open source. That means that the office would have the option of hosting it themselves if they wished. We would also provide the web service for those offices that preferred to do it that way.

[sergiogm2000]

Hi Jordan, I was the first to ask for a web version 2 years ago, no I see that, as technologies move forward, it's kind of a dilemma: what path should we follow?, to move only the business layer to a webservice since there's much better internet speed than years ago or to upgrade and move the front-end also to be web based completely, I understand the two paths, the first one is easier and no need to rewrite or hardcode all the front end, that means a more stable version using only a webservice to access the database remotely, but maybe we need to encrypt the data in order no to be spoofed across networks (note: this will only work on windows machines); the second option will be a more compatible across OS and could be run smoothly on Linux, Apple's OSX, BSD etc., this option will drain more server's resources but we need not to care much about security since almost everyone will host the App under the same server as the DB.

Either way is great, my humble opinion is that it will be good to start focusing on a rock solid webservice (we're going to need it anyway) and after that, to upgrade the front-end to a web based language to make available to people who doesn't use Windows.

Just my two cents,
Regards.

[sandi]

I played in the sandbox of denticon a web based software and found it very laggy, nothing is instant flicking between screens takes a few seconds , wouldnt be my cup of tea at all. Curve hero looks fantastic but there is no demo that one can use for some reason.
I dont really see the point, there is no saving considering imaging, scanning etc is done on site and am infrastructure is needed to support this in any case. Backups these days on many European programs look after themselves with built in schedulers backing up the open databases across the network as part of the practice management program so no one can have an excuse if something happens.
I really dont see any point at all frankly even though the buzz is all about the cloud. I can see why email can and should be hosted by the likes of google they can do a better job of it than can be done inhouse but a practice management program ?

[bhsu01]

Hi,
I am also on the market for a new PMS. This is kind of going to be stream of conscious. Anyways, Giving some background: I'm a new dentist only one year out. I consider myself a highly capable End-User, but in terms of programming and nuts and bolts, it's minimal. I think the Cloud concept is great and it's getting there, but until infrastructure becomes more stable I do not trust it.....ie Comcast or whoever brings you your internet cannot be depended on. Redundancy is key as well, so in office, physical harddrive backups required.

I believe the ultimate solution would be still be an in-office PMS system with a twin web-based version to be accessed securely anywhere and replicated anywhere with real-time synchronization. So it's both in office and cloud. The reason I also think the "cloud" is necessary is for possible office expansion/multi-office practices.

For instance, currently we have one office and are ready to expand to another. I want these offices to be connected real-time.....right now we have patients that go to both offices...it's a mess. Been looking into geographic networking solutions, I guess that means VPN stuff (not super familiar with it but I think i can get it going). But honestly, it seems like a patchy solution.

Other ideas I was playing with was using Microsoft outlook with Microsoft exchange server...why would I do this? Because I still haven't found any great PMS systems that have automatic appointment reminders (sms, email, etc), and since outlook/microsoft is such a largely used applicaition base with so many developers constantly busting out 3rd party apps, making it's scalability high for such a solution......it's less proprietary to our profession however.........and being not tailored to our profession this also still feels like patch work.

I realize to my previous paragraph that there are 3rd party people out there like smilereminders and demandforce, but this is more patchwork and very costly. We really need a more integrated solution.

So back to my ultimate solution. In-office wired up system...gives security, reliability and speed. Also a cloud version...allows global access (multi-location practice, access patient info anywhere, workstation replication easy).....even global access from the patient side (patient can see if appointments are available or even make appointments)....on this last note I also was looking into using web-based scheduling programs, but they are way too simple (google Schedulicity or Skedgeme to see this concept) . Then email/sms integration and automation is a must too.

Sorry for the randomness and length of my post....been researching PMS solutions for weeks.

[jordansparks]

As we build our mobile version, we've been going with a synchronization strategy so that we host the data on our server. It's been obvious that the same synchronization will allow us to host a "lite" version of Open Dental on ordinary full-size browsers. So it looks like that will be our path to having a web version.

[ray5100]

I think it is great that a web version is going to be available. I am just about to set up a new practice in Central California. For now I think I will go with OD and server with network of computers. Will add web version once available. As I understand it, The good thing about a net version, would be not needing to worry about a server and backup locally, and have every individual computer link directly to the internet, but I understand that this is slow at this point as soon as images and radiographs are needed. AM I wrong?

Ray Lander, CA

[jordansparks]

Yes, large images continue to be slow. I'm glad you are going to buy Open Dental, but I want you to clearly understand that we do not currently have a web version and we are not promising a web version in any sort of timeframe. In other words, I don't want you to purchase vaporware and then later get angry at us if we don't match your expected timeframe. We have good intentions, but it's a very complicated issue.

[drtech]

My 2 cents...don't worry about a web version for your new practice...the speed of the internet is not there yet...it will be in the future, but for now, local networking is still the best. IMO, just use online backup and then you have the best of both worlds.

[enamelrod]

how fast does it have to be many areas have 25+meg speed i have 50meg now and stream movies with no problem

[jordansparks]

No, that's your download speed. Uploads are slower.

[drtech]

yes, uploads are anywhere from 300k to 2mb/sec in most places...if you have 50mb down..you might have 5mb up though...that is FAST!

[enamelrod]

yes jordan i know that and my upload is 7-10mb. so is that not fast enough?... also is it possible to do it in reverse meaning store the photos locally and have your web server pull them down from our machines from a photo cache? no i dont know how it works just seems like it would work.

[jordansparks]

Yes, that's fast, but it won't be as snappy as a local database. Depends on where you are willing to compromise.

[murmsk]

I don't understand why a local web server would be slower than having the data offsite

steve

[jordansparks]

It wouldn't. It's just too hard for the average user to set up and maintain.