3 ms·

The author's examples of inflated user expectations are unconvincing. Transferring data across the globe is the whole point of wide area networking, far predati

The author's examples of inflated user expectations are unconvincing. Transferring data across the globe is the whole point of wide area networking, far predating WWW. Making online purchases has been possible since the early days of the web. Furthermore, the author's definition of "native" is revisionist, placing it at a highly recent time frame, and categorizing it by features that are semantically disparate. So-called "progressive loading" and no installation process have been traits of native applications for a long time. In fact, at a primal level, the process of installing a program boils down to a copy operation. Notice how in the last paragraph, the examples of the web's feature richness are all intrinsically limited browser reimplementations of native interfaces that exist in parallel with the host OS.

jaffathecake 11y ago
"Furthermore, the author's definition of "native" is revisionist, placing it at a highly recent time frame" - this is the usage in the article I'm responding to.
cromwellian 11y ago
They have? I've been using computers since the mid 80s, and unless you think loading apps from floppy disk, datasette, or cartridge, counts as "install less", this is a disingenuous rebuttal. The Web brought with it portable executable content that ran without escalated privileges or install, and this did not exist before in any widescale deployment accessible by endusers. Prior art is General Magic Telescript and SafeTcl, or perhaps PostScript or NeWS if you want to count those as wide deployment. The difference between the Web and Install models, is that installation doesn't scale to the long tail because it places shit work on the user to manage limited resources (screen real estate, disk space). The Browser Cache doesn't impose this cognitive burden. There is no cost of cleanup imposed on you by clicking a web link. The back button takes care of it. That's why it's "surfing" because it is effortless and imposes no long term transaction cost. To try out a web site, you click it, if it sucks, no harm no foul. Native apps are completely different. To check and see if you'll like an app, you have to install it. It consumes permanent resources. If you then decide you don't like it, you have to permanently uninstall it. Many people are so burdened by this step, they leave unused unliked apps on their device. Then one day, they run out of space when trying to take a photo or download a new app and find that they must then go clean up their memory and delete a bunch of stuff. An incredibly shitty experience that the Web Browser solved ages ago. Android and iOS apps should work more like Java Applets or Flash. You should be able to run them without install, and then only if you like them a lot and run them many times, should you optionally pin them from being purged.

jaffathecake 11y ago

"Furthermore, the author's definition of "native" is revisionist, placing it at a highly recent time frame" - this is the usage in the article I'm responding to.

cromwellian 11y ago

They have? I've been using computers since the mid 80s, and unless you think loading apps from floppy disk, datasette, or cartridge, counts as "install less", this is a disingenuous rebuttal. The Web brought with it portable executable content that ran without escalated privileges or install, and this did not exist before in any widescale deployment accessible by endusers. Prior art is General Magic Telescript and SafeTcl, or perhaps PostScript or NeWS if you want to count those as wide deployment. The difference between the Web and Install models, is that installation doesn't scale to the long tail because it places shit work on the user to manage limited resources (screen real estate, disk space). The Browser Cache doesn't impose this cognitive burden. There is no cost of cleanup imposed on you by clicking a web link. The back button takes care of it. That's why it's "surfing" because it is effortless and imposes no long term transaction cost. To try out a web site, you click it, if it sucks, no harm no foul. Native apps are completely different. To check and see if you'll like an app, you have to install it. It consumes permanent resources. If you then decide you don't like it, you have to permanently uninstall it. Many people are so burdened by this step, they leave unused unliked apps on their device. Then one day, they run out of space when trying to take a photo or download a new app and find that they must then go clean up their memory and delete a bunch of stuff. An incredibly shitty experience that the Web Browser solved ages ago. Android and iOS apps should work more like Java Applets or Flash. You should be able to run them without install, and then only if you like them a lot and run them many times, should you optionally pin them from being purged.