12-09-16 02:44 PM
38 12
tools
  1. The_Passporter's Avatar
    I keep hearing the biggest reason people are migrating over to Android is due to not having access to the number of apps or key apps that are crucial to their everyday needs. I understand that sometimes work can dictate what platform you must use and Social networking (FB, WA, SC) can also have an impact on what mobile device you choose as well.

    Today I was listening to an Android podcast that said over 60% of all the apps in the Google Play Store have never been downloaded once. Are apps that big of a deal then really. There are three major platforms to develop for but for me there are four . In this podcast they had a guest that worked on native apps and web apps. Discussing the rising popularity of WebApps as they only need to develop one WebApp that would work on one browser on any phone or device. WebApps are created once and can be used on a PC, Mac, Tablet or phone by just using a browser. This solves development cost and becomes very attractive, EX: banks, mobile cellular providers, printer manufacturers. The list is endless.

    Is not idea similar to what what John Chen envisioned for cross platform etiquette and protocol when he approached the US government to help find a balance that would help spur growth and innovation in the software development and competition of the mobile world by asking for a requirement for apps to be able to be used cross platform?

    If WebApps gain in popularity and strength, I wonder if BlackBerry will return to BB10 and have another go at it since there would be less of a struggle to provide the number of apps required? Even if that pipe dream does not materialize I hope that it would breath new life into our existing BB10 devices in the next few years.

    Posted via CB10
    12-03-16 11:38 PM
  2. Bla1ze's Avatar
    Maybe, but web apps have been a thing for so long now it's starting to just sound like blathering. It's at the 'shut up and make it work or stop talking about it until it does' point.
    12-03-16 11:44 PM
  3. anon(10099834)'s Avatar
    "Web Apps" if I'm understanding correctly lack the notification capabilities of actual apps. Example, being Facebook mobile. Sure you can login and see notifications etc, but unless you link the Site to SMS or email, you don't get notifications unless logged in.

    So I don't thing our "instant notification" users would find this sufficient. Again, I could be wrong. Just my 2cents
    12-03-16 11:55 PM
  4. gebco's Avatar
    "Web Apps" if I'm understanding correctly lack the notification capabilities of actual apps. Example, being Facebook mobile. Sure you can login and see notifications etc, but unless you link the Site to SMS or email, you don't get notifications unless logged in.

    So I don't thing our "instant notification" users would find this sufficient. Again, I could be wrong. Just my 2cents
    When I logged in to FB Web on my Priv, it prompted me to receive notifications. I don't have FB app installed on the phone, but I do get notifications in the top tray. This works for me. And no FB app draining my battery.
    Plazmic Flame likes this.
    12-04-16 12:16 AM
  5. chain13's Avatar
    Webapps is very limited. It will not replaced real app that built from the core of the OS and will never be. I once tried tank hero game from chrome store. It's a simple low ghrapic webapp game. It got my computer burned in a minute.
    12-04-16 12:17 AM
  6. conite's Avatar
    Developers only need to make two apps: one for iOS, and one for Android. They can bring a much richer experience with native apps that integrate into the platform.
    12-04-16 12:23 AM
  7. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Developers only need to make two apps: one for iOS, and one for Android. They can bring a much richer experience with native apps that integrate into the platform.
    Exactly.

    Apps are about entities looking to cater to consumers. I'd guess more folks get more functionality from dedicated apps than the alternative.
    12-04-16 03:09 AM
  8. Nikola Adzic's Avatar
    Surface phone by MS is the future. IF they manage to fulfil their plans. Concept of that phone is like mini pc. You will get with continuum possibility to attach your device to any monitor or tv and voila, you have fully functional computer. Since im working with phones, almost every brand, I saw that window mobile 10 is on the roll. Why? They ditching apps per se and taking user experience and building apps on whole other levele: web based apps programing. For two months or so, now you have Instagram app that is just web based app with fully functional touch controls. Viber also. YouTube is fully web based, literally.

    You all talking how BlackBerry is business device, you managed to get all tasks done over small mobile device. Pls, if you work with excell and adobe, it's almost not possible. Pc and laptops are still and will remain workhorses for all kind of tasks.

    So web apps ARE the future, thumbs up OP.

    Posted via CB10
    manorlord and elfabio80 like this.
    12-04-16 03:30 AM
  9. Soulstream's Avatar
    I keep hearing the biggest reason people are migrating over to Android is due to not having access to the number of apps or key apps that are crucial to their everyday needs. I understand that sometimes work can dictate what platform you must use and Social networking (FB, WA, SC) can also have an impact on what mobile device you choose as well.

    Today I was listening to an Android podcast that said over 60% of all the apps in the Google Play Store have never been downloaded once. Are apps that big of a deal then really. There are three major platforms to develop for but for me there are four . In this podcast they had a guest that worked on native apps and web apps. Discussing the rising popularity of WebApps as they only need to develop one WebApp that would work on one browser on any phone or device. WebApps are created once and can be used on a PC, Mac, Tablet or phone by just using a browser. This solves development cost and becomes very attractive, EX: banks, mobile cellular providers, printer manufacturers. The list is endless.

    Is not idea similar to what what John Chen envisioned for cross platform etiquette and protocol when he approached the US government to help find a balance that would help spur growth and innovation in the software development and competition of the mobile world by asking for a requirement for apps to be able to be used cross platform?

    If WebApps gain in popularity and strength, I wonder if BlackBerry will return to BB10 and have another go at it since there would be less of a struggle to provide the number of apps required? Even if that pipe dream does not materialize I hope that it would breath new life into our existing BB10 devices in the next few years.

    Posted via CB10
    The app gap is not about having 10000 apps installed on your device, it's about having the option to do so. Most people have a limited number of key apps that they use (about 10-20 on average), but that subset of key apps is different for everybody. Without organic growth of the app store, no matter how much money BB invests in paying developers, the app gap will persist (see Microsoft's case).

    Every modern mobile OS support web apps (and has done so for a few years now) , yet there are very few apps that are web apps. Why? Simple. By developing just two native apps you are reaching 99% of the market. 99%. And native apps will always be better and be at the cutting-edge of innovation and design compared to a web app.

    So the options to developers are:
    1. develop 2 native apps for iOS and Android and 99% of customers will get an top class experience, while the last 1% will get nothing
    2. develop 1 web app and then customise that app with OS specific hooks for certain tasks. This app will not be at the same quality as the first case. So 100% of customers will get a pretty good experience.

    The problem is that the difference between these 2 cases is that 99% of people will get a worse experience in the second case than in the first. Is the last 1% worth the lower experience of the 99%? Most mobile developers (which I am part of) agree that it is not worth it.
    The_Passporter likes this.
    12-04-16 05:50 AM
  10. The_Passporter's Avatar
    The app gap is not about having 10000 apps installed on your device, it's about having the option to do so. Most people have a limited number of key apps that they use (about 10-20 on average), but that subset of key apps is different for everybody. Without organic growth of the app store, no matter how much money BB invests in paying developers, the app gap will persist (see Microsoft's case).

    Every modern mobile OS support web apps (and has done so for a few years now) , yet there are very few apps that are web apps. Why? Simple. By developing just two native apps you are reaching 99% of the market. 99%. And native apps will always be better and be at the cutting-edge of innovation and design compared to a web app.

    So the options to developers are:
    1. develop 2 native apps for iOS and Android and 99% of customers will get an top class experience, while the last 1% will get nothing
    2. develop 1 web app and then customise that app with OS specific hooks for certain tasks. This app will not be at the same quality as the first case. So 100% of customers will get a pretty good experience.

    The problem is that the difference between these 2 cases is that 99% of people will get a worse experience in the second case than in the first. Is the last 1% worth the lower experience of the 99%? Most mobile developers (which I am part of) agree that it is not worth it.
    I have to disagree that the app will always be better then the WebApp. Can it be a better experience? Yes. Is it always designed with the same option parity offered on the actual web page? No. I've seen apps that I just uninstalled due to poor design and just saved the Web Page to my homescreen. I guess it depends on the app and if the developer will create the same or better experience in the app.

    Yes you are right that they can hit 99% of the people with two apps and Conite made that point as well. My question is why is three too much then. I know I'm no developer but when is it too much work and when is it just favoritism, Laziness or what have you? I guess I'm not understanding why they have not went thru with creating a better tool for developers to convert apps to each platform with minimal tweaking. I know MS was working on such a tool and scrapped the idea with no explanation.

    My hopes are to see MS gain traction so that it will bring the question to mind, "Should there be one standard for an app to be used on all platforms?". And maybe WebApps are not the answer but the idea is the right one I think.


    Posted via CB10
    12-04-16 06:58 AM
  11. Soulstream's Avatar
    I have to disagree that the app will always be better then the WebApp. Can it be a better experience? Yes. Is it always designed with the same option parity offered on the actual web page? No. I've seen apps that I just uninstalled due to poor design and just saved the Web Page to my homescreen. I guess it depends on the app and if the developer will create the same or better experience in the app.

    Yes you are right that they can hit 99% of the people with two apps and Conite made that point as well. My question is why is three too much then. I know I'm no developer but when is it too much work and when is it just favoritism? I hope to see MS gain traction so that it will bring the question to mind, "Should there be one standard for an app to be used on all platforms?". And maybe WebApps are not the answer but the idea is the right one I think.


    Posted via CB10
    There is no common standard to develop apps on desktop OSs and that is after more than 2 decades of mature desktop market. Why? Because the desktop market also has one big OS (Windows), one smaller but premium OS (MacOSX) and the "others" (dozens of linux distros). There is very little incentive to develop such a standard. Having just 2 OSs to support is small enough for the effort not to be big enough and big enough for it to be competition.

    it's not favoritism at all. We, as developers, don't really care which platforms won the "mobile OS war", all that mattered is that some did. It just happened to be iOS and Android, but it could have very well been Windows Phone or BB10.

    The fact that nobody develops for BB10 is that it's too much work for the number of users that BB10 has. Each OS requires approximately the same amount of time to develop any app. Let's say that time is X days. So for two apps which will reach 99% of people , the time consumed is 2X. Now, lets say we have another X time. Where would that time be best spent? To develop an app for an under 1% OS or improve the app for the 99%? It's pretty obvious that it would be better in terms of both costs and potential revenue to develop new features for the 99%.

    You also have to draw a line somewhere. Why is BB10 more important than the other under 1% OSs out there? We can't develop for all.
    12-04-16 07:18 AM
  12. G_Unit MVP's Avatar
    In my opinion, the problem is not the lack of apps. When Blackberry was the number one, developers did offer apps for our OS. But sadly, when RIM started to lost their focus (and market share), developers started to move out. And by the time new apps like snapchap became popular, BB was the long fourth in the race, so for some developers there was no need to even worry about BB.

    I think blaiming apps -or lack of them- for the failure of BB10 is not asuming their own responsability.
    The_Passporter likes this.
    12-04-16 07:38 AM
  13. app_Developer's Avatar
    There a lot of banks and retailers that make both. We all measure usage and satisfaction on each and make our decisions accordingly. We went to webapps only and came back to native. So did some other large banks. So did Facebook.

    For some apps you can get away with making it a webapp with very little compromise. But that's only some apps. For others, we know from experience that users prefer the integration, fluidity of native. Users do notice the difference and we have tested this with millions of users, as have our colleagues at other companies.

    There are only 2 platforms for which you need to make apps now. It's not as complicated as it might have looked 5-6 years ago.
    12-04-16 07:56 AM
  14. keliew's Avatar
    That's where companies should be investing in software development of non-core apps, rather than relying on 3rd party developers...

    BlackBerry Passport via CB10
    12-06-16 01:22 PM
  15. EFats's Avatar
    There's no reason a good Webapp can't be as good as a native app. I think Office 365 is a reasonable example. The problem with Webapps is that you need standards and if you want, for example, notifications, you need to wait for the standard (the Push API is work in progress, as is access to lower level devices such as GPS, camera, etc). If you are a developer who needs to make a living, you can't afford to wait right now. (I have tried developing in-house webapps and even just targetting the desktop was a nightmare, no such thing as write once run anywhere yet)

    If you think of the Browser as a "virtual machine" and HTML as the code for that, it is conceptually very similar to Java or even C# .NET, so that is capable of quite a lot.

    But will BlackBerry browser/OS be maintained long enough for it to happen?

    Really there is probably a list of about 20-30 core apps that is enough to make a mobile OS viable. The problem is how to convince the developers to do it. It takes a huge bucketload of cash to convince them when they are already raking in 99% of the market. What's the extra 1% worth to them? Nothing, especially since most of the key apps are "free" anyways. It's the data they're after and they've already got more than enough.

    What pisses me off is when people deliberately disable apps. (e.g. Youtube on PlayBook, the videos in my history actually play fine, but they choose to block any new searches)


    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    12-06-16 03:12 PM
  16. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    That's where companies should be investing in software development of non-core apps, rather than relying on 3rd party developers...
    Companies who own Internet-based services (such as, say, Snapchat, or WhatsApp, or QuickBooks, or Nest) already make first-party apps for the major platforms, and usually also a mobile web version (though, of course, due to web standards lagging far behind native, the web apps will be missing features and functionality in many cases). But these are for-profit companies, and supporting platforms that are well under 1% of the market is a money-losing proposition. That's why almost no one does it. Why should they, and how would they justify it to their shareholders?

    If you're talking about, say, BlackBerry making apps for these services, that also isn't profitable, but more than that, for most apps, it's impossible. BB was able to write a Facebook app for BBOS and for BB10 because FB used to have a public API that allowed anyone to write their own FB client. FB closed their API about a year ago and is already making changes on the server side that older clients don't support - and that will continue. The thing is, FB is owned by Facebook, Inc, and people creating clients without permission are breaking the law and can be successfully sued. The same is true of any other service - if they don't publish a public API (which is becoming more rare as things go forward), then reverse-engineering their API and writing your own app is illegal. You might have some indie developers who get away with doing that for a while - because the companies don't want a media spectacle and backlash for suing some kid - but actual corporations would get sued with no mercy.

    In the real world, you either use one of the platforms these companies choose to support (like 99+% of users), or you use their web app on the platform of your choice and deal with the limitations of that technology. Those are the only official, supported, and fully legal choices.

    If another OS somehow breaks 10% marketshare, you can bet that a lot of companies will start supporting it, but less than that, and you're left with web apps. There is always a cost for being an outlier, and you either agree to pay that "cost" or you join the mainstream. You don't get to change the whole industry because you aren't happy with those choices (unless you can get venture funding to pay for it!).
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    12-06-16 07:37 PM
  17. keliew's Avatar
    It's really just business.

    Companies grow their market share from 0%.

    BlackBerry Passport via CB10
    12-07-16 04:46 PM
  18. Polt's Avatar
    40%downloads? That pretty freaking amazing... that's like close to every one out of two apps is useful to someone.
    12-07-16 08:40 PM
  19. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    Today I was listening to an Android podcast that said over 60% of all the apps in the Google Play Store have never been downloaded once.
    BTW, this is a completely bogus "statistic". Per Google's own reports, less than 10% of apps aren't downloaded at least once per month. But with over 1.2 million apps, there's going to be some junk apps or some apps with very, very narrow focus.

    If even 10% of the apps in the store were "critical", that would still be 120,000 critical apps. You have to keep the scale of the issue in focus.

    We all know there are HUGE apps that almost everyone uses: Google Maps, Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, etc.

    But there are a lot of apps on the tier just below that, that have millions of users, such as Quickbooks, Salesforce, GoToMeeting, and so on.

    Below that are apps that are targeted to a single industry: medical, technical, manufacturing, restaurants, etc. While the average person may have zero interest in any of those apps, people in the targeted industries live and die by those apps, and use them all day everyday.

    There are also many thousands of apps that work with specific hardware: audio gear, video gear, drones, cameras, lights, and various other sensors and so on. Heck, I'm now able to set up commercial-grade WiFi access point systems (with multiple APs across multiple sites all working together) right from my phone - and that's part of my job. I can remotely manage any of dozens of customers, from almost anywhere. Changes that I used to have to make appointments and drive out to make, I can now make while I'm still on the phone with that customer, in seconds.

    So, it isn't just the big apps - it's also the "long tail" of specialty apps that people use that make them more efficient, which makes them more money and improves customer service (and customer ratings). App ecosystems are of gigantic importance - really, they make or break a platform. Trying to downplay that is to be in denial - and the marketplace sure knows the truth, and they vote with their wallets.

    If BB had the biggest ecosystem, no one here would be saying that apps weren't important - which is the point: anyone suggesting that apps aren't important are just grasping at straws trying to make an excuse for BB - when even BB themselves admitted in a recent social media post that they dropped the ball following the release of the iPhone in 2017 and weren't fast enough to stay competitive (which is an understatement!).

    Why don't OS/2 Warp or BeOS still exist on the desktop? Why isn't Linux everywhere? The answer is: apps make all the difference, and those who have them will always win over those who don't.

    Even Steve Ballmer, that crazy former CEO of Microsoft, who got a lot of things wrong, understood that apps (and the developers that make them, and either choose to support your platform or not) are critical to the success of a platform.



    Yes, he's looney, but in this instance, he was right. Note the huge auditorium filled with developers that MS spends tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year catering to. That's what it takes to win - which is why it's so amazing that MS failed so badly in mobile (due to Ballmer's lack of focus on it in favor of other lines of business).
    12-07-16 10:13 PM
  20. The_Passporter's Avatar
    BTW, this is a completely bogus "statistic". Per Google's own reports, less than 10% of apps aren't downloaded at least once per month. But with over 1.2 million apps, there's going to be some junk apps or some apps with very, very narrow focus.

    If even 10% of the apps in the store were "critical", that would still be 120,000 critical apps. You have to keep the scale of the issue in focus.

    We all know there are HUGE apps that almost everyone uses: Google Maps, Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, etc.

    But there are a lot of apps on the tier just below that, that have millions of users, such as Quickbooks, Salesforce, GoToMeeting, and so on.

    Below that are apps that are targeted to a single industry: medical, technical, manufacturing, restaurants, etc. While the average person may have zero interest in any of those apps, people in the targeted industries live and die by those apps, and use them all day everyday.

    There are also many thousands of apps that work with specific hardware: audio gear, video gear, drones, cameras, lights, and various other sensors and so on. Heck, I'm now able to set up commercial-grade WiFi access point systems (with multiple APs across multiple sites all working together) right from my phone - and that's part of my job. I can remotely manage any of dozens of customers, from almost anywhere. Changes that I used to have to make appointments and drive out to make, I can now make while I'm still on the phone with that customer, in seconds.

    So, it isn't just the big apps - it's also the "long tail" of specialty apps that people use that make them more efficient, which makes them more money and improves customer service (and customer ratings). App ecosystems are of gigantic importance - really, they make or break a platform. Trying to downplay that is to be in denial - and the marketplace sure knows the truth, and they vote with their wallets.
    I believe it was Android police or Android Central that I heard the news on and I swear I heard them say Google play store. It's possible due to the similar size of the stores that they carried over the statistics but here is the link for your information.

    http://www.phonearena.com/news/40000...report_id32943

    I'd rather believe an independent company then the one selling themselves at the top dog.

    Posted via CB10
    12-08-16 06:59 AM
  21. ohaiguise's Avatar
    Correct. Most apps and games are garbage (the average person will only find a couple dozen or so that they actually want to use), but that's where the money's at.
    12-08-16 07:05 AM
  22. ominaxe's Avatar
    I hate app-centricity so many people seem to have. If I can do it on the browser, I will never ever download the app. Seeing as bb10 has the best browser, I welcome it.

    But there are a few problems: advertisements are first and foremost. One of the major reasons apps are great is because there are minimal, or less intrusive ads. Ads really slow down browsers.

    Next has to do with something that most OSs fail at, which is app integration. Apps have the ability to integrate with phones much better than Web based 'apps'. BB10 is a great example of how apps can blend seemlessly with the os/hub/gestures.

    Also, apps have a better way of working on smaller screens with keyboards.

    Lastly, it has to do with how ****ty most browsers are. As a teacher that integrates tech into the class, most students prefer to use phones rather than computers because of how slow things load on their computer's browser. I mean the computer is immensely more powerful than their phone, yet apps are lightweight and faster on worse hardware. Do they have to be? No. But most developers want to optimize apps before they look to browsers.

    I'll never forget how stupid I thought apps were when I bought my first smartphone. I downloaded an app less than 1 MB and I kept thinking: how the hell can a translating program be so small? Then I realized information was coming from the internet and wondered if the entire thing isn't installed on my phone and is still web based, what's the point? It's when I realized that I wasn't installing PROGRAMS on my phone, but they were 'layovers', as I called them then.

    Apps suck, but I think are here to stay.
    12-08-16 09:06 AM
  23. Soulstream's Avatar
    I hate app-centricity so many people seem to have. If I can do it on the browser, I will never ever download the app. Seeing as bb10 has the best browser, I welcome it.

    But there are a few problems: advertisements are first and foremost. One of the major reasons apps are great is because there are minimal, or less intrusive ads. Ads really slow down browsers.

    Next has to do with something that most OSs fail at, which is app integration. Apps have the ability to integrate with phones much better than Web based 'apps'. BB10 is a great example of how apps can blend seemlessly with the os/hub/gestures.

    Also, apps have a better way of working on smaller screens with keyboards.

    Lastly, it has to do with how ****ty most browsers are. As a teacher that integrates tech into the class, most students prefer to use phones rather than computers because of how slow things load on their computer's browser. I mean the computer is immensely more powerful than their phone, yet apps are lightweight and faster on worse hardware. Do they have to be? No. But most developers want to optimize apps before they look to browsers.

    I'll never forget how stupid I thought apps were when I bought my first smartphone. I downloaded an app less than 1 MB and I kept thinking: how the hell can a translating program be so small? Then I realized information was coming from the internet and wondered if the entire thing isn't installed on my phone and is still web based, what's the point? It's when I realized that I wasn't installing PROGRAMS on my phone, but they were 'layovers', as I called them then.

    Apps suck, but I think are here to stay.
    BB10 does NOT have the best browser at all. for both javascript and HTML5 it is way behind Chrome (from Android) and even Edge (from Windows phone)

    Things load faster on apps because the whole user-interface is client side and doesn't need to be downloaded again from the website. The app just receives data with which to populate the interface. There may be some additional rendering or adding of graphic elements on the app-side, but it will most likely be less than downloading and rendering an entire web-page.
    stlabrat likes this.
    12-08-16 10:12 AM
  24. glwerry's Avatar
    There's no reason a good Webapp can't be as good as a native app. I think Office 365 is a reasonable example. The problem with Webapps is that you need standards and if you want, for example, notifications, you need to wait for the standard (the Push API is work in progress, as is access to lower level devices such as GPS, camera, etc). If you are a developer who needs to make a living, you can't afford to wait right now. (I have tried developing in-house webapps and even just targetting the desktop was a nightmare, no such thing as write once run anywhere yet)


    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    As long as you live in an area with lightning-fast Web, the webapp can function quite well.
    I live in a rural area that has congestion issues on both regular land-based Web and to a lesser extent on the wireless (cellular) Web.

    A major advantage of a "local" app is that you have to rely less on the Web speed and graphics that the browser supports.

    I develop code and we have recently gone over to largely Web-based applications: I will take the native, hosted application any time.
    12-08-16 10:40 AM
  25. Peter Fan's Avatar
    Just wanted to praise the participants here on a very nice topic and very informative idea exchanges.

    Posted via CB10
    12-08-16 09:25 PM
38 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD