5 ms·

Web will win. No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can a

Web will win. No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can access. 1 Company will never and should never control the way people access information. App stores allow this while the web does not making it the only likely future.

brg 16y ago
Alternatively, everyone wants to get paid. No one is going to put in the time and resources to support an app that can not be monetized. And if the advertising model does not work on mobile phones (perhaps lack of screen real-estate, perhaps mobile has terrible cpm) then there is no alternative than the app store.
- jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
  This is a big problem. It will get fixed.
  - moe 16y ago
    It's also a rather easy problem. Web billing systems have existed for ages, I don't see a reason why those shouldn't work on a phone.
    - jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
      It takes initiative and a great product specifically built for the problem. You can't just plug in a hard to use product (for the dev and end user). It needs to be as easy to buy the mobile web app as it is to buy the iphone app store app. ie- one click. have you ever tried to put CC info in on a mobile phone? its hell.
      - moe 16y ago
        This is a billion dollar market. Rest assured initiative will not be in short supply, once the first serious mobile webapps (read: proof of concept) pop up. Apple will do their best to hinder progress as long as they can but I doubt they can delay the inevitable for very long. The next gen of phones will likely already provide a near frictionless web performance. From there it's only a matter of being "allowed" to hook into phone APIs via javascript. Apple will naturally deny this while Android will embrace it aggressively. From that point onwards Apple has a serious problem on their hands, as far as the iPhone platform is concerned.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Apple won't deny this from happening. Don't they already have a great set of tools available to make your web app work like a "real" one?
        chc 16y ago
        The suggestion that "Apple will do their best to hinder progress" really needs support. So far, Apple has been pushing Web apps harder than anybody else out there. They initially presented Web apps as the preferred way to create iPhone software — it's the developers who balked at that and demanded an SDK. There's a special Web app mode built into MobileSafari. Heck, MobileSafari itself is at the forefront of Web technology, supporting a lot more sophisticated stuff than any of the other mobile browsers and more than a lot of desktop browsers until recently. On top of all that, Apple itself produces a very cool standards-based free Web application framework, SproutCore. How is that hindering progress?
    - chc 16y ago
      The problem isn't that they won't work in the strictest sense of the words — the trouble is that they are a much higher barrier to entry than the App Store model. I'll readily buy things from iTunes or Amazon because that's as simple as entering my password, but having to go through yet another billing system with all the hassles and signups and all that nonsense strongly discourages me from buying elsewhere. I would be willing to bet very good money that if you took a best-selling app from the App Store and created a Web app clone that charged the same price to be able to use it, you'd see less than a quarter of the sales of the app — probably drastically less.
      - keltex 16y ago
        The answer there is Amazon Payments (works just like going to amazon). I have to assume that Apple will come out with "Apple Payments" at some point as well.
        chc 16y ago
        Amazon Payments is a step in the right direction, but even it is more complex. Here's the App Store flow: 1. Click "Buy" 2. Enter your password 3. Click "Buy" Here's the Amazon Payments flow: 1. Click "Pay' 2. Enter your username 3. Enter your password 4. Click "Sign In" 5. Choose a payment method 6. Click "Pay" Bear in mind that the burden of typing is much greater on a mobile (and especially touchscreen) device, so just having to enter both a username and password instead of just a username is far more annoying. There's also the fact that people are very unaccustomed to paying for access to Web sites (as opposed to buying things off of Web sites). Can you think of any paid site that's widely used by consumers? I can't. So you actually need to make it more painless than the App Store, because even if you have something extraordinarily compelling, you've already almost scared your customers off just by mentioning money.
        moe 16y ago
        Huh? There is no reason why the amazon workflow couldn't be made identical to the appstore flow. All it takes is a cookie. Sure, you will still have to go through the long route during your first purchase. But I really think you're blowing this problem out of proportion.
glhaynes 16y ago
I certainly agree with the statement "1 Company will never and should never control the way people access information" if we're talking about a single company controlling access for all people, such as would be the situation if Apple (or Blackberry or Microsoft, etc) were the only phone provider. But I'm far less ready to say that there should not be any phones on the market that have restrictions on them regarding what code is allowed to execute. It seems to me that this is a legitimate choice for consumers to make and it's OK for them to be allowed to make it as long as there are also non-restricted phones available. Diversity here is good - it's not clear to me that the best user experience in practice always comes from systems that are unrestricted. I'm happy the experiment gets to compete in the free market and see how it goes as long as other options are available.
- chc 16y ago
  That isn't what's happening, though. Apple is easily among the best of the best at making cool things — this is debatable, but it's close enough to true that I hope it won't be too controversial. The coolness of Apple's things is orthogonal to whether they're open or closed. Apple sells people on this coolness, and they don't know what they're missing that they could have in an open system. It's much like the "blub problem" — when you're using something that works for you and that's all you know, it's easy to miss ways it could be better. If people were free to sell their own iPhones with customized iPhone OSen and app stores, then it would be a fair competition in the free market. But as it is, it's not open versus closed — it's open versus cool.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    I don't think it's at all clear that Apple's product coolness is orthogonal to whether they're open or not. If we go with the instance you set out (iPhone OS is licensed or open sourced, presumably), we would lose one of the key differentiators of iPhone: the consistent hardware and software UI. Licensees would build devices with more than one (main) hardware button, differing aspect ratios, hardware keyboards, etc. iPhone OS app developers would have more devices to target and users would be left with software that isn't fully optimized for that device's strengths and form factor. You can't have the good of "open" without the bad. Not that I'm saying that there being such systems in existence is a bad thing by any means: I'm very glad that Android and the like exist. They've got strong advantages because of their openness: if you want a hardware keyboard, you ain't ever getting one from Apple, and it'd be a poorer world if nobody could get a phone with a hardware keyboard. But disadvantages from that openness are unavoidable, too. So, to me, the optimal situation for customers is for there to be a mix of providers with varying degrees of openness. This increases choice and diversity: there aren't only different makers of phones, there are different whole models of what those devices should be like, with each model competing on its strengths, not just individual devices. If nobody in the "open" camp can produce something as cool as Apple (I'm not saying this is the case), then maybe we should reconsider whether open always leads to the best solutions.
johnrob 16y ago
I'd go a bit further and say that the web has already won. At the moment, mobile hardware is still too slow to provide decent web browser experience (which is why we use native apps).
poutine 16y ago
Right, just like it has won on the desktop and all applications are now in the browser. Right? Pass the joint around...
naner 16y ago
> No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can access. Everyone wants to get paid (already said) and not have to worry about managing payments and organizing distribution/discovery.
- jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
  Agreed and it's one of the biggest barriers and pain points. Were aiming to fix this on the non mobile web with Cloudomatic.
DenisM 16y ago
No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can access. Java failed in this quest.

brg 16y ago

Alternatively, everyone wants to get paid. No one is going to put in the time and resources to support an app that can not be monetized. And if the advertising model does not work on mobile phones (perhaps lack of screen real-estate, perhaps mobile has terrible cpm) then there is no alternative than the app store.

jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
This is a big problem. It will get fixed.
- moe 16y ago
  It's also a rather easy problem. Web billing systems have existed for ages, I don't see a reason why those shouldn't work on a phone.
  - jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
    It takes initiative and a great product specifically built for the problem. You can't just plug in a hard to use product (for the dev and end user). It needs to be as easy to buy the mobile web app as it is to buy the iphone app store app. ie- one click. have you ever tried to put CC info in on a mobile phone? its hell.
    - moe 16y ago
      This is a billion dollar market. Rest assured initiative will not be in short supply, once the first serious mobile webapps (read: proof of concept) pop up. Apple will do their best to hinder progress as long as they can but I doubt they can delay the inevitable for very long. The next gen of phones will likely already provide a near frictionless web performance. From there it's only a matter of being "allowed" to hook into phone APIs via javascript. Apple will naturally deny this while Android will embrace it aggressively. From that point onwards Apple has a serious problem on their hands, as far as the iPhone platform is concerned.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Apple won't deny this from happening. Don't they already have a great set of tools available to make your web app work like a "real" one?
      - chc 16y ago
        The suggestion that "Apple will do their best to hinder progress" really needs support. So far, Apple has been pushing Web apps harder than anybody else out there. They initially presented Web apps as the preferred way to create iPhone software — it's the developers who balked at that and demanded an SDK. There's a special Web app mode built into MobileSafari. Heck, MobileSafari itself is at the forefront of Web technology, supporting a lot more sophisticated stuff than any of the other mobile browsers and more than a lot of desktop browsers until recently. On top of all that, Apple itself produces a very cool standards-based free Web application framework, SproutCore. How is that hindering progress?
  - chc 16y ago
    The problem isn't that they won't work in the strictest sense of the words — the trouble is that they are a much higher barrier to entry than the App Store model. I'll readily buy things from iTunes or Amazon because that's as simple as entering my password, but having to go through yet another billing system with all the hassles and signups and all that nonsense strongly discourages me from buying elsewhere. I would be willing to bet very good money that if you took a best-selling app from the App Store and created a Web app clone that charged the same price to be able to use it, you'd see less than a quarter of the sales of the app — probably drastically less.
    - keltex 16y ago
      The answer there is Amazon Payments (works just like going to amazon). I have to assume that Apple will come out with "Apple Payments" at some point as well.
      - chc 16y ago
        Amazon Payments is a step in the right direction, but even it is more complex. Here's the App Store flow: 1. Click "Buy" 2. Enter your password 3. Click "Buy" Here's the Amazon Payments flow: 1. Click "Pay' 2. Enter your username 3. Enter your password 4. Click "Sign In" 5. Choose a payment method 6. Click "Pay" Bear in mind that the burden of typing is much greater on a mobile (and especially touchscreen) device, so just having to enter both a username and password instead of just a username is far more annoying. There's also the fact that people are very unaccustomed to paying for access to Web sites (as opposed to buying things off of Web sites). Can you think of any paid site that's widely used by consumers? I can't. So you actually need to make it more painless than the App Store, because even if you have something extraordinarily compelling, you've already almost scared your customers off just by mentioning money.
        moe 16y ago
        Huh? There is no reason why the amazon workflow couldn't be made identical to the appstore flow. All it takes is a cookie. Sure, you will still have to go through the long route during your first purchase. But I really think you're blowing this problem out of proportion.

glhaynes 16y ago

I certainly agree with the statement "1 Company will never and should never control the way people access information" if we're talking about a single company controlling access for all people, such as would be the situation if Apple (or Blackberry or Microsoft, etc) were the only phone provider. But I'm far less ready to say that there should not be any phones on the market that have restrictions on them regarding what code is allowed to execute. It seems to me that this is a legitimate choice for consumers to make and it's OK for them to be allowed to make it as long as there are also non-restricted phones available. Diversity here is good - it's not clear to me that the best user experience in practice always comes from systems that are unrestricted. I'm happy the experiment gets to compete in the free market and see how it goes as long as other options are available.

chc 16y ago
That isn't what's happening, though. Apple is easily among the best of the best at making cool things — this is debatable, but it's close enough to true that I hope it won't be too controversial. The coolness of Apple's things is orthogonal to whether they're open or closed. Apple sells people on this coolness, and they don't know what they're missing that they could have in an open system. It's much like the "blub problem" — when you're using something that works for you and that's all you know, it's easy to miss ways it could be better. If people were free to sell their own iPhones with customized iPhone OSen and app stores, then it would be a fair competition in the free market. But as it is, it's not open versus closed — it's open versus cool.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  I don't think it's at all clear that Apple's product coolness is orthogonal to whether they're open or not. If we go with the instance you set out (iPhone OS is licensed or open sourced, presumably), we would lose one of the key differentiators of iPhone: the consistent hardware and software UI. Licensees would build devices with more than one (main) hardware button, differing aspect ratios, hardware keyboards, etc. iPhone OS app developers would have more devices to target and users would be left with software that isn't fully optimized for that device's strengths and form factor. You can't have the good of "open" without the bad. Not that I'm saying that there being such systems in existence is a bad thing by any means: I'm very glad that Android and the like exist. They've got strong advantages because of their openness: if you want a hardware keyboard, you ain't ever getting one from Apple, and it'd be a poorer world if nobody could get a phone with a hardware keyboard. But disadvantages from that openness are unavoidable, too. So, to me, the optimal situation for customers is for there to be a mix of providers with varying degrees of openness. This increases choice and diversity: there aren't only different makers of phones, there are different whole models of what those devices should be like, with each model competing on its strengths, not just individual devices. If nobody in the "open" camp can produce something as cool as Apple (I'm not saying this is the case), then maybe we should reconsider whether open always leads to the best solutions.

johnrob 16y ago

I'd go a bit further and say that the web has already won. At the moment, mobile hardware is still too slow to provide decent web browser experience (which is why we use native apps).

poutine 16y ago

Right, just like it has won on the desktop and all applications are now in the browser. Right? Pass the joint around...

naner 16y ago

> No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can access. Everyone wants to get paid (already said) and not have to worry about managing payments and organizing distribution/discovery.

jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
Agreed and it's one of the biggest barriers and pain points. Were aiming to fix this on the non mobile web with Cloudomatic.

DenisM 16y ago

No one wants to make an app for the iPhone, Android, Palm, Blackberry, and WinMobil when then can just make 1 for the web which all of them can access. Java failed in this quest.