5 ms·

This is absolutely huge and I think some people may be missing its significance. Back in the 90's Windows had a huge monopoly due to network effects - develope

by MarkMc 12y ago

This is absolutely huge and I think some people may be missing its significance. Back in the 90's Windows had a huge monopoly due to network effects - developers would target Windows because it had the greatest number of potential users. But now they will target Android for the same reason because it can run on Windows, Mac, ChromeOS and Android smartphones. This "Android First" model will affect several major areas, all in Google's favour: 1. It strengthens ChromeOS over Windows. ChromeOS is already a strong player in the education and low-price sectors. Having a huge range of Android apps will make ChromeOS far more attractive and grow its market share. Moreover if corporate, boring-office-CRUD developers switch to an Android-first model then it will very quickly kill Windows. 2. It strengthens Chrome over Firefox and IE. Many apps will now require the Chrome browser to run. Oh, you are running Firefox on Windows and want to play that cool Android game your friend told you about? Just switch to Chrome and sign in with your Google account! Again there are network effects - the greater Chrome's market share the more willing developers are to create Chrome-only apps. 3. It strengthens Android over iOS. Android has about 85% of smartphone market share, but many startups are still undecided about an Android-first approach because a single Apple user generates far more revenue than a single Android user. Having Android run on desktops will push some startups off the fence in favour of Android-first. A few developers switching from iOS to Android doesn't sound like much, but if there are a ever a critical mass of Android-only apps it will quickly kill iOS. Apple should be worried. 4. It strengthens Native over Web-app development. Ok this isn't a huge benefit for Google, but it is significant for developers. Back in 2005 every startup chose browser-based web apps as their target platform. The rise of smartphones has pushed the pendulum back towards native development, but desktops have remained the preserve of web apps. Many startups now develop both a Web App and Android version of their product - by dumping Web App development startups will now be able to (a) save costs; (b) produce a desktop app that has native performance and better access to Google Play Services.

kibwen 12y ago
It's certainly a fascinating piece of tech and a very politically intriguing play by Google, but I don't see it suddenly changing the calculus of app development. Here's why: the set of apps that I run on my phone are disjoint from the set of apps that I run on my laptop or desktop. My laptop doesn't need a flashlight, or turn-by-turn navigation, or the ability to hail a cab, because I don't have it out or open or even with me when I do the things that need these apps. My phone doesn't need Photoshop or Notepad++ because the form factor doesn't favor it. Write-once-run-everywhere isn't a selling point for your app because I don't actually want to run it everywhere. The one exception could be games, which are a lucrative market. That said, mobile games will offer a limited set of interactions compared to typical PC offerings, which will limit appeal to people who are already playing mobile games but who wish to play those games on their desktop as well. It will increase time spent in the app, but not grow the market substantially relative to new users coming in from mobile devices. And because it requires a browser anyway and because ARC is never going to run on iOS, if the web can advance fast enough to keep the market satisfied (asm.js is a start, but payment is still horribly lacking) then there will be pressure to just do everything on the web anyway. Interesting times are in store, regardless.
- MarkMc 12y ago
  I think you may be underestimating the overlap between smartphone and desktop functionality. Take a look at the home screen of your smartphone - what percentage of those apps are also available as a web app? For me that figure is about 80%.
  - kibwen 12y ago
    Amusingly, for me, there's exactly one app with a web equivalent that's not a preinstalled Google app (a weather app). The rest all are either doing things with hardware that the web doesn't know how to access (accelerometer, microphone, camera, FM radio, SMS, cell, raw network access), or apps for managing data on the phone itself (contacts, image gallery), or services with no web equivalent (Steam, Lyft). And that's just the thing: if your app can be done on the web, you're already going to do it on the web, because there's not a platform on the planet that won't automatically have it. If the website that you already have doesn't perform well enough, then you make a second app while you wait for the web to reach parity. You're going to think I'm weird, but I don't use the Facebook app, I use the site. I don't use the Twitter app, I use the site. This isn't some philosophical choice on my part, I really just can't be arsed to take the effort to search for yet another app on the app store, and then fret over the implications of approving yet another set of meaningless permissions, and then resign myself to endure yet another app pestering me to update it for the rest of my days. I accept that there will always be a place for native apps. The web is slow to pick up on new bits of hardware and new modes of interaction, so native will always be ahead of the pack there (though Mozilla is at least attempting to prepare itself for the Oculus Rift with a big push for VR on the web). It's a conservative platform. But once something is Good Enough for the web, you need a very good reason to dislodge it.
    - MarkMc 12y ago
      We are clearly polar opposites because I love native apps ;) For example you might think The Economist was perfectly suited to a browser web 'app', but I prefer the native Android app because (a) it notifies me when a new issue is published; (b) it downloads the content offline; (c) it is fast to navigate and has smooth animations between pages. I think we've been talking about two separate issues: 1. Do a significant proportion of apps need to provide the same functionality on both a smartphone and on desktop computers? Here I think the answer is yes. Twitter, Gmail, weather apps, maps, image gallery, music streaming, games, banking apps, youtube, etc. provide essentially the same feature set on both devices. 2. If an app needs to run on both smartphone and desktop, should it be native or a web app? Here I think the answer is not so clear-cut. Certainly in the past 15 years it was true that "if your app can be done on the web, you're already going to do it on the web, because there's not a platform on the planet that won't automatically have it". But will that still be the case in 5 years time? The choice of platform for a new app depends on more than just the potential number of users - the usability and development cost also matter. Let's say I expect to produce a web app, an iOS app and an Android app - is it really worth the extra cost to produce the web app if I can cover 95% of the potential user base without it?

by MarkMc 12y ago

kibwen 12y ago

It's certainly a fascinating piece of tech and a very politically intriguing play by Google, but I don't see it suddenly changing the calculus of app development. Here's why: the set of apps that I run on my phone are disjoint from the set of apps that I run on my laptop or desktop. My laptop doesn't need a flashlight, or turn-by-turn navigation, or the ability to hail a cab, because I don't have it out or open or even with me when I do the things that need these apps. My phone doesn't need Photoshop or Notepad++ because the form factor doesn't favor it. Write-once-run-everywhere isn't a selling point for your app because I don't actually want to run it everywhere. The one exception could be games, which are a lucrative market. That said, mobile games will offer a limited set of interactions compared to typical PC offerings, which will limit appeal to people who are already playing mobile games but who wish to play those games on their desktop as well. It will increase time spent in the app, but not grow the market substantially relative to new users coming in from mobile devices. And because it requires a browser anyway and because ARC is never going to run on iOS, if the web can advance fast enough to keep the market satisfied (asm.js is a start, but payment is still horribly lacking) then there will be pressure to just do everything on the web anyway. Interesting times are in store, regardless.

MarkMc 12y ago
I think you may be underestimating the overlap between smartphone and desktop functionality. Take a look at the home screen of your smartphone - what percentage of those apps are also available as a web app? For me that figure is about 80%.
- kibwen 12y ago
  Amusingly, for me, there's exactly one app with a web equivalent that's not a preinstalled Google app (a weather app). The rest all are either doing things with hardware that the web doesn't know how to access (accelerometer, microphone, camera, FM radio, SMS, cell, raw network access), or apps for managing data on the phone itself (contacts, image gallery), or services with no web equivalent (Steam, Lyft). And that's just the thing: if your app can be done on the web, you're already going to do it on the web, because there's not a platform on the planet that won't automatically have it. If the website that you already have doesn't perform well enough, then you make a second app while you wait for the web to reach parity. You're going to think I'm weird, but I don't use the Facebook app, I use the site. I don't use the Twitter app, I use the site. This isn't some philosophical choice on my part, I really just can't be arsed to take the effort to search for yet another app on the app store, and then fret over the implications of approving yet another set of meaningless permissions, and then resign myself to endure yet another app pestering me to update it for the rest of my days. I accept that there will always be a place for native apps. The web is slow to pick up on new bits of hardware and new modes of interaction, so native will always be ahead of the pack there (though Mozilla is at least attempting to prepare itself for the Oculus Rift with a big push for VR on the web). It's a conservative platform. But once something is Good Enough for the web, you need a very good reason to dislodge it.
  - MarkMc 12y ago
    We are clearly polar opposites because I love native apps ;) For example you might think The Economist was perfectly suited to a browser web 'app', but I prefer the native Android app because (a) it notifies me when a new issue is published; (b) it downloads the content offline; (c) it is fast to navigate and has smooth animations between pages. I think we've been talking about two separate issues: 1. Do a significant proportion of apps need to provide the same functionality on both a smartphone and on desktop computers? Here I think the answer is yes. Twitter, Gmail, weather apps, maps, image gallery, music streaming, games, banking apps, youtube, etc. provide essentially the same feature set on both devices. 2. If an app needs to run on both smartphone and desktop, should it be native or a web app? Here I think the answer is not so clear-cut. Certainly in the past 15 years it was true that "if your app can be done on the web, you're already going to do it on the web, because there's not a platform on the planet that won't automatically have it". But will that still be the case in 5 years time? The choice of platform for a new app depends on more than just the potential number of users - the usability and development cost also matter. Let's say I expect to produce a web app, an iOS app and an Android app - is it really worth the extra cost to produce the web app if I can cover 95% of the potential user base without it?