3 ms·
> To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based. Massive value to whom? We all know the value to the developer.
by algore 16y ago
> To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based.
Massive value to whom?
We all know the value to the developer. I'm not disputing the current cost savings of webapps, though it will quickly become irrelevant as native app dev/distribution costs plummet.
But is there any value to the customer? There used to be a lot more. Sure was convenient to be able to log in to your email from any computer. That was until you started to read all your email on your phone that you carry with you all the time.
The web interface isn't going to disappear, but it will become the secondary way to interact with apps. Right now it is still the primary for many apps like Facebook and Flickr. That is changing.
- jasonlotito 16y ago> But is there any value to the customer? Yes. > That was until you started to read all your email on your phone that you carry with you all the time. What does that have to do with web apps and native apps? Maybe your assuming that these web apps being discussed are merely that: on the web. The real fact is, you can load these apps locally, and use them without an internet connection, with local storage. > Right now it is still the primary for many apps like Facebook and Flickr. That is changing. You assume this is because native apps are better. This is not true. All your mobile apps aren't native because it's better to be native. They are native because they can get into the app store to be sold. And how do you get into the app store? Well, I guess you gotta learn Objective-C. And even then, the quality of the apps is questionable compared to the mobile versions.