4 ms·

What I don't understand is why these late-comers continue to try and build their own self-contained ecosystem of apps. Microsoft with all its money still barely

What I don't understand is why these late-comers continue to try and build their own self-contained ecosystem of apps. Microsoft with all its money still barely has a decent ecosystem and even that has a lot of holes. There's 0 chance that any other is going to be given the time of day. Blackberry hinging on Gingerbread apps is just silly. Instead they should be betting on the web, completely. Ubuntu, being a traditional Linux distro, has a big library of desktop apps that can be cross-compiled in Emscripten, but instead they split their much smaller resources between several different options.

marssaxman 14y ago
Web apps just aren't as nice as real apps, and all the existing platforms already support them too. If there's nothing your new platform can do that the existing ones can't, and your message is "just deal with the 80% solution that is the web app world", why would anyone use your new system?
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Apps that exist are better than apps that don't exist. Ask WebOS users, the few that still are out there. The only way to make web apps as nice is to put the engineering effort into making them as nice (something only Mozilla is seriously doing at this time). Another proprietary mobile ecosystem isn't going to be adopted.
  - marssaxman 14y ago
    I don't understand your argument. A new platform has to offer something the existing platforms don't have. Web apps cannot be the differentiator for a new phone OS because the big two already have standards-compliant web browsers. The browser is table stakes; of course any new phone OS must offer one, because you can't be taken seriously without it, but the browser in itself is not a reason to use the platform. Or are you suggesting that new phone OSes ought to add proprietary non-standard browser extensions in place of a native apps API? Given the ugly history of proprietary browser features it is difficult to imagine anyone taking such a strategy seriously.
adamsaleh 14y ago
Well why cross-compile to Emscripten, when you can cross-compile directly for arm,e.t.c (thus leveraging diractly unix/desktop heritage)
tuneit 14y ago
actually there have been talk about one common api for all .nix that is tizen, sailfish, meego, ubuntu, plasma

marssaxman 14y ago

Web apps just aren't as nice as real apps, and all the existing platforms already support them too. If there's nothing your new platform can do that the existing ones can't, and your message is "just deal with the 80% solution that is the web app world", why would anyone use your new system?

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Apps that exist are better than apps that don't exist. Ask WebOS users, the few that still are out there. The only way to make web apps as nice is to put the engineering effort into making them as nice (something only Mozilla is seriously doing at this time). Another proprietary mobile ecosystem isn't going to be adopted.
- marssaxman 14y ago
  I don't understand your argument. A new platform has to offer something the existing platforms don't have. Web apps cannot be the differentiator for a new phone OS because the big two already have standards-compliant web browsers. The browser is table stakes; of course any new phone OS must offer one, because you can't be taken seriously without it, but the browser in itself is not a reason to use the platform. Or are you suggesting that new phone OSes ought to add proprietary non-standard browser extensions in place of a native apps API? Given the ugly history of proprietary browser features it is difficult to imagine anyone taking such a strategy seriously.

adamsaleh 14y ago

Well why cross-compile to Emscripten, when you can cross-compile directly for arm,e.t.c (thus leveraging diractly unix/desktop heritage)

tuneit 14y ago

actually there have been talk about one common api for all .nix that is tizen, sailfish, meego, ubuntu, plasma