7 ms·

Ubuntu HTML5 SDK

155 points by Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago

sandstrom 13y ago
Firefox OS, Chrome OS and now Ubuntu throwing their weight behind HTML. Nice! Curiously, iOS have sort of taken the other path, beginning with only HTML apps and then drifted away somewhat.
- jacob019 13y ago
  Who needs portability when you run fast and have achieved critical mass? Firefox OS, Chrome OS, and Ubuntu are all linux with tiny market share. I don't see many benefits for Apple.
  - dynamic99 13y ago
    The benefits would be more developer-geared rather that beneficial for Apple.
    - sergiotapia 13y ago
      Lord knows the only reason why I haven't jumped on the iOS gravy train is Objective-C.
      - mkaziz 13y ago
        It's actually kinda nice once you get used to it.
        imissmyjuno 13y ago
        as long as you use that one IDE for it yes?
        wahnfrieden 13y ago
        I use vim for writing code, and the IDE for a couple tasks like running the simulator.
        pooriaazimi 13y ago
        You can use JetBrain's AppCode if you dislike (despise) Xcode :) It's written in Java, but at least it doesn't crash every couple of days (possibly corrupting(!) .xcodeproject files). And the Modern ObjC (with ARC, @properties, blocks, new @literals, awesome and useful clang errors, etc.) is much, much better than it was around iPhone OS 3.0! The signal/noise ratio of a typical iOS app is now maybe twice that of an app written in the bad old days.
      - dynamic99 13y ago
        Objective-C gets a bad wrap.
        rurounijones 13y ago
        Off-topic. rap, not wrap. Quite an interesting history http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/its-bad-rap-not-bad-wrap/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/its-bad-rap-...
        jablan 13y ago
        I believe it's rep, not rap. Rep as a shorthand for reputation: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rep http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rep
        mistercow 13y ago
        It's not. There is also a phrase "bad rep", but it is distinct.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Even though it's probably not very popular, HTML + JS is also the preferred (only?) way of writing Metro apps for Windows.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    Not only in any fashion (.NET and C++ are still supported) but yeah, they do have a very strong dev pipeline for HTML.
  - tonyedgecombe 13y ago
    It certainly isn't the only way and I'm not sure it's the preferred way.
T-A 13y ago
"write apps that will run on the next million phones"? A rare case of modesty or just a typo?
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Million is probably immodest too. Whoops, i think apple and samsung sold a million phones just then. Oh that's silly, it takes them a day or two to sell a million phones.
schmichael 13y ago
Why would anyone use this? Are there any consumer Ubuntu phones in existence? Is there any evidence there ever will be? I use Ubuntu on desktops and servers, but I've seen no reason to expect Ubuntu to gain any traction on phones.
- themodelplumber 13y ago
  > Is there any evidence there ever will be? Yeah, I think the story was posted here recently. They signed somebody but can't say who it is yet, just that they're "big". There were some hints that the appeal had to do with Android being a big deception built around the "open" concept.
  - schmichael 13y ago
    That doesn't sound like evidence. That sounds like vague marketing hype.
  - T-A 13y ago
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57615107-94/ubuntu-touch-os-wins-its-first-smartphone-partner/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57615107-94/ubuntu-touch-os... It's not clear to me why they'd want to keep the manufacturer secret.
    - daker 13y ago
      Marketing strategy i think
    - JohnBooty 13y ago
      I think the secrecy is likely at the manufacturer's behest. The manufacturer almost certainly uses Android and is mindful of drawing Google's anger.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Put it this way -- it runs on just as many good cellphones as firefox os and you can use it to write desktop apps that will potentially work on mobile. I imagine that at some point a dominant HTML5 wrapper for OS level functionality will become ubiquitous, doesn't really matter whose it is.
xfour 13y ago
Performance and access to the internal SDK seem to be what ultimately kill this approach. Seems like this happens at the beginning of every product cycle. So we've got this decent platform, we build up HTML apps that end up kludgy compared to IOS or Android native, so you do a 180 and release the official SDK and everyone migrates over; or your product never reaches mass adoption and dies. Also, ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are browser's so of course they have a vested interest in making their apps in HTML / JS.
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  "Also, ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are browser's so of course they have a vested interest in making their apps in HTML / JS" Isn't that the point of those platforms?
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  Is this really the correct interpretation? Ubuntu IS releasing a native Qt/QML SDK... they're not going HTML exclusive here.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  > So we've got this decent platform, we build up HTML apps that end up kludgy compared to IOS or Android native People say this all the time, and it makes me wonder if I'm living on a different planet than them. I can see some places where native is better: * A camera app, or a guitar tuner... something that requires access to special APIs. Making that in HTML would be a kludge. * An app that's targeted at tech people, who want to feel like they're living in the future, and who need to have have fancy transitions and animations and subtle 3d effects. But in my experience, the vast majority of apps do NOT require those things. Most apps are just buttons and pages and pictures and videos, and for that kind of stuff, I honestly don't see what the advantage of native is over HTML. Maybe it's because I am an interaction designer. In my experience, the interaction design in most apps, native or HTML, is seriously lacking. It seems like almost no one actually tests their product with actual people. And it seems like very few developers are actually willing to build the dozens of prototypes that are required to iterate through a design in order to get something that actually works well. And so we end up with all of these native apps that are supposedly "not kludgy" because they have native widgets and 3d animations, but actually are extremely kludgy in that everything you do in them is a pain in the ass. But again, I hear people ring the native app bell over and over again like it's some major design issue. So maybe I'm just living in a different world.
sp332 13y ago
Do these APIs cover similar ground as Firefox OS's APIs?
- daker 13y ago
  You need to use Cordova 3.3.x https://cordova.apache.org/announcements/2013/12/16/cordova-330.html https://cordova.apache.org/announcements/2013/12/16/cordova-...
mjp94 13y ago
I can't help but feel that this will turn out the same way as how HTML5 is used on mobile phones for native apps right now, where your app ends up not looking native to any of the devices, despite the benefit of one code base for the app.
- Danieru 13y ago
  Of course it will! This is Cordova, the same Cordova as used on BB10, Android, and iOS. This is less webapps and more html stuffed into a native app. This should not be mistaken for something akin to FirefoxOS. Full disclosure: I've dabbled in systems programming on both Cordova (for BB10), and Gecko. Cordova is but a crude approximation to a proper web environment. Long live Gecko!
navs 13y ago
Wondering how this stacks up against Sencha Touch?
voidr 13y ago
This is just a Qt SDK and a tutorial on how to write a WebView app. It's like opening up Android Studio/XCode and adding a WebView. I would have expected to see something where I only write HTML/JS.

155 points by Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago

Firefox OS, Chrome OS and now Ubuntu throwing their weight behind HTML. Nice! Curiously, iOS have sort of taken the other path, beginning with only HTML apps and then drifted away somewhat.

jacob019 13y ago
Who needs portability when you run fast and have achieved critical mass? Firefox OS, Chrome OS, and Ubuntu are all linux with tiny market share. I don't see many benefits for Apple.
- dynamic99 13y ago
  The benefits would be more developer-geared rather that beneficial for Apple.
  - sergiotapia 13y ago
    Lord knows the only reason why I haven't jumped on the iOS gravy train is Objective-C.
    - mkaziz 13y ago
      It's actually kinda nice once you get used to it.
      - imissmyjuno 13y ago
        as long as you use that one IDE for it yes?
        wahnfrieden 13y ago
        I use vim for writing code, and the IDE for a couple tasks like running the simulator.
        pooriaazimi 13y ago
        You can use JetBrain's AppCode if you dislike (despise) Xcode :) It's written in Java, but at least it doesn't crash every couple of days (possibly corrupting(!) .xcodeproject files). And the Modern ObjC (with ARC, @properties, blocks, new @literals, awesome and useful clang errors, etc.) is much, much better than it was around iPhone OS 3.0! The signal/noise ratio of a typical iOS app is now maybe twice that of an app written in the bad old days.
    - dynamic99 13y ago
      Objective-C gets a bad wrap.
      - rurounijones 13y ago
        Off-topic. rap, not wrap. Quite an interesting history http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/its-bad-rap-not-bad-wrap/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/its-bad-rap-...
        jablan 13y ago
        I believe it's rep, not rap. Rep as a shorthand for reputation: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rep http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rep
        mistercow 13y ago
        It's not. There is also a phrase "bad rep", but it is distinct.
adamnemecek 13y ago
Even though it's probably not very popular, HTML + JS is also the preferred (only?) way of writing Metro apps for Windows.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Not only in any fashion (.NET and C++ are still supported) but yeah, they do have a very strong dev pipeline for HTML.
- tonyedgecombe 13y ago
  It certainly isn't the only way and I'm not sure it's the preferred way.

T-A 13y ago

"write apps that will run on the next million phones"? A rare case of modesty or just a typo?

Tloewald 13y ago
Million is probably immodest too. Whoops, i think apple and samsung sold a million phones just then. Oh that's silly, it takes them a day or two to sell a million phones.

schmichael 13y ago

Why would anyone use this? Are there any consumer Ubuntu phones in existence? Is there any evidence there ever will be? I use Ubuntu on desktops and servers, but I've seen no reason to expect Ubuntu to gain any traction on phones.

themodelplumber 13y ago
> Is there any evidence there ever will be? Yeah, I think the story was posted here recently. They signed somebody but can't say who it is yet, just that they're "big". There were some hints that the appeal had to do with Android being a big deception built around the "open" concept.
- schmichael 13y ago
  That doesn't sound like evidence. That sounds like vague marketing hype.
- T-A 13y ago
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57615107-94/ubuntu-touch-os-wins-its-first-smartphone-partner/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57615107-94/ubuntu-touch-os... It's not clear to me why they'd want to keep the manufacturer secret.
  - daker 13y ago
    Marketing strategy i think
  - JohnBooty 13y ago
    I think the secrecy is likely at the manufacturer's behest. The manufacturer almost certainly uses Android and is mindful of drawing Google's anger.
Tloewald 13y ago
Put it this way -- it runs on just as many good cellphones as firefox os and you can use it to write desktop apps that will potentially work on mobile. I imagine that at some point a dominant HTML5 wrapper for OS level functionality will become ubiquitous, doesn't really matter whose it is.

xfour 13y ago

Performance and access to the internal SDK seem to be what ultimately kill this approach. Seems like this happens at the beginning of every product cycle. So we've got this decent platform, we build up HTML apps that end up kludgy compared to IOS or Android native, so you do a 180 and release the official SDK and everyone migrates over; or your product never reaches mass adoption and dies. Also, ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are browser's so of course they have a vested interest in making their apps in HTML / JS.

sirkneeland 13y ago
"Also, ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are browser's so of course they have a vested interest in making their apps in HTML / JS" Isn't that the point of those platforms?
sirkneeland 13y ago
Is this really the correct interpretation? Ubuntu IS releasing a native Qt/QML SDK... they're not going HTML exclusive here.
erikpukinskis 13y ago
> So we've got this decent platform, we build up HTML apps that end up kludgy compared to IOS or Android native People say this all the time, and it makes me wonder if I'm living on a different planet than them. I can see some places where native is better: * A camera app, or a guitar tuner... something that requires access to special APIs. Making that in HTML would be a kludge. * An app that's targeted at tech people, who want to feel like they're living in the future, and who need to have have fancy transitions and animations and subtle 3d effects. But in my experience, the vast majority of apps do NOT require those things. Most apps are just buttons and pages and pictures and videos, and for that kind of stuff, I honestly don't see what the advantage of native is over HTML. Maybe it's because I am an interaction designer. In my experience, the interaction design in most apps, native or HTML, is seriously lacking. It seems like almost no one actually tests their product with actual people. And it seems like very few developers are actually willing to build the dozens of prototypes that are required to iterate through a design in order to get something that actually works well. And so we end up with all of these native apps that are supposedly "not kludgy" because they have native widgets and 3d animations, but actually are extremely kludgy in that everything you do in them is a pain in the ass. But again, I hear people ring the native app bell over and over again like it's some major design issue. So maybe I'm just living in a different world.

sp332 13y ago

Do these APIs cover similar ground as Firefox OS's APIs?

daker 13y ago
You need to use Cordova 3.3.x https://cordova.apache.org/announcements/2013/12/16/cordova-330.html https://cordova.apache.org/announcements/2013/12/16/cordova-...

mjp94 13y ago

I can't help but feel that this will turn out the same way as how HTML5 is used on mobile phones for native apps right now, where your app ends up not looking native to any of the devices, despite the benefit of one code base for the app.

Danieru 13y ago
Of course it will! This is Cordova, the same Cordova as used on BB10, Android, and iOS. This is less webapps and more html stuffed into a native app. This should not be mistaken for something akin to FirefoxOS. Full disclosure: I've dabbled in systems programming on both Cordova (for BB10), and Gecko. Cordova is but a crude approximation to a proper web environment. Long live Gecko!

navs 13y ago

Wondering how this stacks up against Sencha Touch?

voidr 13y ago

This is just a Qt SDK and a tutorial on how to write a WebView app. It's like opening up Android Studio/XCode and adding a WebView. I would have expected to see something where I only write HTML/JS.