3 ms·
> "Write-once run everywhere" has zero value to the end user. They want the best Facebook/g+/Twitter/whatever experience possible on the platform they use. Exa
by kybernetikos 14y ago
> "Write-once run everywhere" has zero value to the end user. They want the best Facebook/g+/Twitter/whatever experience possible on the platform they use.
Exactly, and if Mr Enduser X can get it on his weird platform because it runs HTML, that's a massive piece of value to him.
Also, while he wants a good experience, he wants it to be free too and the cost in building and maintaining multiple codebases for client libraries would certainly get passed on to him one way or another.
- Zigurd 14y agoThat argument is a little circular. If a platform has significant market share, apps get ported to that platform. If not, it doesn't matter. Before there were Web apps, all software makers wrote apps for multiple platforms. Porting to a platform has a cost, but, for a successful software company, not a relatively large cost. Even unprofitable platforms are likely to be supported by some software makers as a way of erecting barriers to entry, or to speculate on the future success of that platform. Users will expect all the features of their platform to be well-supported in their apps.
- erichocean 14y agoBefore there were Web apps, all software makers wrote apps for multiple platforms. I think you meant: Before there were web apps, most software makers wrote apps for Windows. Because that's what actually happened.