4 ms·

Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true? Apple doesn't give you access to the same experience from the web as from a native app, and

by ezy 17y ago

Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true? Apple doesn't give you access to the same experience from the web as from a native app, and simulations of such have up to this point been second class and will remain so. End of story. A netbook-ish device with no way to put software on it except thru a proprietary corporate censored app store is a big loose. Beyond the hype, I think this device will be everyone's wakeup call. Noone cared too much about the iPhone app store problems because of its limited form factor. Truly, there's a limited number of things you can do with it in a reasonable manner and they were all covered generically about 6 mos after launch. This device can do much more, but there's a lot you won't be able to do because everything must be vetted by Apple.

wycats 17y ago
Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true? Apple has been spending gads of time, energy and effort to make the web experience as close to native as possible. This includes giving access to hardware accelerated CSS animations, access to GPS, and access to offline storage (I outlined a bunch more in the article). For instance, there is no reason the New York Times app they demonstrated today would not have worked fine as ipad.nytimes.com.
- code_duck 17y ago
  I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible. They don't get a cut of sales on native apps, and they can't control the content, style or functions to the same extent - are these issues not important to Apple? Seems they are from how they act about app approval.
  - gridspy 17y ago
    Seems like a great way to ensure that the entrepreneurs making the next great web app support your device really well. One unique selling point of both the iPod and iPad is their status as mobile internet access points. Cementing that status and encouraging entrepreneurs to pay attention with great web APIs seems like a natural way to extend Apple's developer base. If I was addicted to some great web app and learned that it had a nice iPhone interface when I was on the move, I would be incentivised to invest in an iPhone.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible. It makes it easier to sell the hardware.
- ezy 17y ago
  The NYTimes app is truly trivial. In fact, I expect it actually is a web app with some native stuff around the fringes for transitions, popups, etc. And it fits in the genre of a webapp, where you sit and read pages. That is not a good example. For truly interactive apps, that are about content creation or the interactivity itself, the web is second class to the native experience. Just the fact that an address bar pops up when you tap the top of the screen should tell you that. A really good example is gmail. This is the AJAX posterboy, and it has a stellar interface for the web. But it is frankly still second class, even on a desktop. It wins on the desktop because it's free, convenient and because it's good enough, not because it is a paragon of usability compared to the best native mail app. On the iphone, they've tried even harder -- but it's even worse. It feels nowhere as smooth as the native Mail app. It's got features, but it's a crappy experience.

by ezy 17y ago

wycats 17y ago

Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true? Apple has been spending gads of time, energy and effort to make the web experience as close to native as possible. This includes giving access to hardware accelerated CSS animations, access to GPS, and access to offline storage (I outlined a bunch more in the article). For instance, there is no reason the New York Times app they demonstrated today would not have worked fine as ipad.nytimes.com.

code_duck 17y ago
I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible. They don't get a cut of sales on native apps, and they can't control the content, style or functions to the same extent - are these issues not important to Apple? Seems they are from how they act about app approval.
- gridspy 17y ago
  Seems like a great way to ensure that the entrepreneurs making the next great web app support your device really well. One unique selling point of both the iPod and iPad is their status as mobile internet access points. Cementing that status and encouraging entrepreneurs to pay attention with great web APIs seems like a natural way to extend Apple's developer base. If I was addicted to some great web app and learned that it had a nice iPhone interface when I was on the move, I would be incentivised to invest in an iPhone.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible. It makes it easier to sell the hardware.
ezy 17y ago
The NYTimes app is truly trivial. In fact, I expect it actually is a web app with some native stuff around the fringes for transitions, popups, etc. And it fits in the genre of a webapp, where you sit and read pages. That is not a good example. For truly interactive apps, that are about content creation or the interactivity itself, the web is second class to the native experience. Just the fact that an address bar pops up when you tap the top of the screen should tell you that. A really good example is gmail. This is the AJAX posterboy, and it has a stellar interface for the web. But it is frankly still second class, even on a desktop. It wins on the desktop because it's free, convenient and because it's good enough, not because it is a paragon of usability compared to the best native mail app. On the iphone, they've tried even harder -- but it's even worse. It feels nowhere as smooth as the native Mail app. It's got features, but it's a crappy experience.