Comments on: The Silly Web vs. Native Apps Debate http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/ Media, Tech & Business Models Thu, 23 May 2013 00:38:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Andres http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-31646 Andres Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:24:02 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-31646 drink my semen, y'all drink my semen, y’all

]]> By: Wyrwane z kontekstu – The Silly Web vs. Native Apps Debate - UX Labs http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27791 Wyrwane z kontekstu – The Silly Web vs. Native Apps Debate - UX Labs Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:07:29 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27791 [...] Źródło: The Silly Web vs. Native Apps Debate, Jean-Louis Gassée, Monday Note [...] [...] Źródło: The Silly Web vs. Native Apps Debate, Jean-Louis Gassée, Monday Note [...]

]]> By: Jean-Louis Gassée on HTML 5 apps for smartphones « soft•ways http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27789 Jean-Louis Gassée on HTML 5 apps for smartphones « soft•ways Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:58:22 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27789 [...] Jean-Louis Gassée on HTML 5 apps for smartphones Then we have the good old Write Once Run Anywhere (WORA) refrain. Developing and maintaining native apps for different devices is time-consuming and expensive. You need to hire separate teams of engineers/designers/QA, experts at squeezing the best performance from their respective devices, educing the most usable and intuitive UI, deftly tracking down elusive bugs. And even then, your product will suffer from “feature drift”: The ostensibly separate-but-equal native apps will differ in subtle and annoying ways. [...] [...] Jean-Louis Gassée on HTML 5 apps for smartphones Then we have the good old Write Once Run Anywhere (WORA) refrain. Developing and maintaining native apps for different devices is time-consuming and expensive. You need to hire separate teams of engineers/designers/QA, experts at squeezing the best performance from their respective devices, educing the most usable and intuitive UI, deftly tracking down elusive bugs. And even then, your product will suffer from “feature drift”: The ostensibly separate-but-equal native apps will differ in subtle and annoying ways. [...]

]]> By: Dylan Janeke http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27767 Dylan Janeke Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:01:39 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27767 I've been saying exactly this for years: http://bharatria.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/flash-vs-html5/ I’ve been saying exactly this for years: http://bharatria.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/flash-vs-html5/

]]> By: Martin Spa http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27765 Martin Spa Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:55:52 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27765 Another thing Mark said on the event is "One of the things that’s interesting is we actually have more people on a daily basis using mobile Web Facebook than we have using our iOS or Android apps combined. So mobile Web is a big thing for us." http://blog.tobie.me/post/31366970040/when-im-introspective-about-the-last-few-years-i Also, the mobile web version of Facebook is pretty fast.There's a pretty much used Android application called 'Tinfoil for Facebook' which is infact a wrapper around the mobile web version, and for me it works faster than the official Facebook apps for Android and iOS too. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco.fbwrapper Another thing Mark said on the event is “One of the things that’s interesting is we actually have more people on a daily basis using mobile Web Facebook than we have using our iOS or Android apps combined. So mobile Web is a big thing for us.”

http://blog.tobie.me/post/31366970040/when-im-introspective-about-the-last-few-years-i

Also, the mobile web version of Facebook is pretty fast.There’s a pretty much used Android application called ‘Tinfoil for Facebook’ which is infact a wrapper around the mobile web version, and for me it works faster than the official Facebook apps for Android and iOS too.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco.fbwrapper

]]> By: Peter Yared http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27763 Peter Yared Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:59:09 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27763 I think you hit the nail on the head - for showing some text & pictures, mobile web is just fine. But Facebook completely missed the camera craze, which requires native code to access the camera, apply filters, tag people, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head – for showing some text & pictures, mobile web is just fine. But Facebook completely missed the camera craze, which requires native code to access the camera, apply filters, tag people, etc.

]]> By: Patrick Soeder http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27762 Patrick Soeder Mon, 17 Sep 2012 05:44:12 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27762 Web, Hybrid, Native - There is room for them all. I personally think LinkedIn's app works great and serves as a good example when things are done right. Web, Hybrid, Native – There is room for them all. I personally think LinkedIn’s app works great and serves as a good example when things are done right.

]]> By: Fazal Majid http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27761 Fazal Majid Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:35:20 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27761 It's a poor workman who blames its tools. Many mobile users preferred the FB mobile website to its iPhone app, and the website is implemented in... HTML5. The real issue seems to have been a turf battle internally between the mobile developers and the web developers, the web team prevailed and crippled the app: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/14/facebook_html_5_vs_native_apps/ It’s a poor workman who blames its tools. Many mobile users preferred the FB mobile website to its iPhone app, and the website is implemented in… HTML5.

The real issue seems to have been a turf battle internally between the mobile developers and the web developers, the web team prevailed and crippled the app:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/14/facebook_html_5_vs_native_apps/

]]> By: Walt French http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27758 Walt French Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:18:08 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27758 I don't get the concern any more. Yes, two or three years ago, some people reasonably thought that we might have four or more mobile platforms to target. . But we're down to two small-screen platforms, and relatively easy variants thereof for mid-small screens. The <b>likelihood</b> that WP8 will ever be used by more than 20 million demanding customers — 2% of the currently 1 billion smartphone market— which was never very good, has dipped into single digits. 20 million users at $1 per pop is nothing to sneeze at, but if an app isn't going to get more than a small share of that market, so as to not justify a platform-specific environment, how is it worth worrying about them at all? . And why would you NOT want a tailored app for the other 98% of the mobile market? Too expensive? How can you possibly have a business plan for mobile users through a generic, slower interface, that doesn't justify a couple tens or even hundreds of thousands for the best user experience? . The bigger problem is that nobody wants 300 apps on their phone. If I like to visit MondayNote.Com, I <b>do not</b> want to have to fire up a MondayNote app. So yes, smart HTML site design still matters. But that is a far cry from functionality that would justify the term, “app.” . The real alternative is a whole category of communications, with OS-supplied apps for quick-thought-, friends/face-, RSS- and other-style apps, that our current hodgepodge of blogs, twitter, facebook and news pages will evolve. Writing this from a trip to the Galapagos, where we're examining evolutionary mechanisms, it's hard to see how these new creatures will evolve. (It's a bit discouraging that RSS, which seemed so useful just months ago, has become useless for me. . But I'm pretty sure these new life forms will appear. They may not save news, or tweeting or touching base with friends, so much as replace them. Anybody building some new check-in, touching-base or similar app may hope that their tech becomes the new paradigm. But I suspect the real survivors will come from a few skilled and far-looking shops. I don’t get the concern any more. Yes, two or three years ago, some people reasonably thought that we might have four or more mobile platforms to target.
.
But we’re down to two small-screen platforms, and relatively easy variants thereof for mid-small screens. The likelihood that WP8 will ever be used by more than 20 million demanding customers — 2% of the currently 1 billion smartphone market— which was never very good, has dipped into single digits. 20 million users at $1 per pop is nothing to sneeze at, but if an app isn’t going to get more than a small share of that market, so as to not justify a platform-specific environment, how is it worth worrying about them at all?
.
And why would you NOT want a tailored app for the other 98% of the mobile market? Too expensive? How can you possibly have a business plan for mobile users through a generic, slower interface, that doesn’t justify a couple tens or even hundreds of thousands for the best user experience?
.
The bigger problem is that nobody wants 300 apps on their phone. If I like to visit MondayNote.Com, I do not want to have to fire up a MondayNote app. So yes, smart HTML site design still matters. But that is a far cry from functionality that would justify the term, “app.”
.
The real alternative is a whole category of communications, with OS-supplied apps for quick-thought-, friends/face-, RSS- and other-style apps, that our current hodgepodge of blogs, twitter, facebook and news pages will evolve. Writing this from a trip to the Galapagos, where we’re examining evolutionary mechanisms, it’s hard to see how these new creatures will evolve. (It’s a bit discouraging that RSS, which seemed so useful just months ago, has become useless for me.
.
But I’m pretty sure these new life forms will appear. They may not save news, or tweeting or touching base with friends, so much as replace them. Anybody building some new check-in, touching-base or similar app may hope that their tech becomes the new paradigm. But I suspect the real survivors will come from a few skilled and far-looking shops.

]]> By: Antoine http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/17/the-silly-web-vs-native-apps-debate/#comment-27756 Antoine Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:47:44 +0000 http://www.mondaynote.com/?p=4931#comment-27756 JLG, Here is a reco beyond the very accurate "it depends" for services that dont start with a native app. I would actually title it: "Both, in that order" 1. HTML5 for the desktop version. 2. HTML5 "mobile optimized" website to cover the entire "non-desktop but still smart" world and those who wont download your app (they exist, especially when you are not Facebook :) ) 3. And when it comes to optimizing for iOS and Android (usually only the latest release for the latter, i.e. a small portion of the base), start from scratch and feel free to reuse your HTML5 components as needed. JLG,

Here is a reco beyond the very accurate “it depends” for services that dont start with a native app.

I would actually title it: “Both, in that order”

1. HTML5 for the desktop version.
2. HTML5 “mobile optimized” website to cover the entire “non-desktop but still smart” world and those who wont download your app (they exist, especially when you are not Facebook :) )
3. And when it comes to optimizing for iOS and Android (usually only the latest release for the latter, i.e. a small portion of the base), start from scratch and feel free to reuse your HTML5 components as needed.

]]>