[Superfly_FR]

Have you heard of the internet?????

its sad the way people have been conditioned to think, although it seems you make 'apps' so you are likely biased and have a vested interest.

And you clearly don't make apps, which makes your "expertise" on this subject worth absolutely nothing.

Why does this keep happening? Mike007 is spot-on here.

If you don't mind a unified system that's loaded with unhappy compromises, that's not outside the realm of possibility. The zillions of obvious problems aside, I agree that such a system an important step. I just don't see it happening anytime soon, though for non-technical reasons.

All depends on what you expect your app to do.
For most apps that doesn't require intensive use of GPU (like games do) I pretend the gap is now tiny. In some cases advantage even goes to HTML. But it is a case by case analysis.

[mikeo007]

All depends on what you expect your app to do.
For most apps that doesn't require intensive use of GPU (like games do) I pretend the gap is now tiny. In some cases advantage even goes to HTML. But it is a case by case analysis.

Exactly. But it's still an HTML "APP". When we're talking web pages, you start limiting possibilities. At this point, almost all native functions are off the table and you have to be online to access the web page.

Webworks is HTML5 apps done right IMO. I can program in an easy (for me) language and use modular javascript. When I need to access native functions, there are hooks available for almost everything. My apps can be run offline with no Internet connectivity necessary.
And I can still custom tailor my app for the UI of the specific platform.

[theRock1975]

I totaly agree. To allow developers to develop one app that can be used on all devices will be huge! Think of the costs and time devs can save by making and supporting one set of software vs multiple versions of the same thing.

Android apps seems to be the most universal. They can be ported to Bb10 in less than an hour. They can soon be ported to windows phones and of course they work on Android. That just leaves Apple but they'll never budge.

[hurds]

Exactly. But it's still an HTML "APP". When we're talking web pages, you start limiting possibilities. At this point, almost all native functions are off the table and you have to be online to access the web page.

Webworks is HTML5 apps done right IMO. I can program in an easy (for me) language and use modular javascript. When I need to access native functions, there are hooks available for almost everything. My apps can be run offline with no Internet connectivity necessary.
And I can still custom tailor my app for the UI of the specific platform.

I understand that you will blindly bash Blackberry, and therefore any place that their current platform is inferior will somehow become a negative in your eyes. It's a sad, petty way to view the various other smartphone ecosystems though.
Your reply just reeks of jealousy. (------------ I just have to point out this jealousy thing to me is hilarious. You honestly think I'm jealous of android or iOS. Guess what, I use an iphone right now and at any moment I could go and buy a android for cheap. How could I possibly be jealous. Its more likely that you are jealous because you as a developper have spent time learning and investing into these app ecosystems that you develop for and it wouldn't be an easy transition for you. Me, I'm a consumer and I don't care. I can flip flop back and forth platforms whenever I want).

I just took your quote there and switched it for you. You obviously don't read everything I write. I say app stores are fine. They are good for native/high-end/specific apps. I'm against the applification of the web (Think Basillie said that, so we know to the masses he must be wrong since the media pumped the idea he was a bad CEO, despite the fact hes genius). Do you know what a vested interested is? I have none when it comes to apps. I just want there to be competition and believing that downloading all web content from an app store is completely stupid but its the idea thats been pushed on us and apples doing there best effort to continue. Seriously, why am I being asked to download an app for every website I got to in my browser that works perfectly fine. We dont need apps for everything, I'd argue for most things we don't Just good a browser, preferably one that doesn't reload everytime like iOS, but that goes the same for their apps. I think you see things in extremes and think you need apps for everything, but thats what you are going to think since you make apps.

What apps have you made so I can check them out? Any for ios? What type of things can you do with native in your apps you couldn't do with the web? These would be much better arguments than labelling me as a BB fanboy (which I agree I am, they are just doing some amazing stuff no one else is). Have you seen BB10 ability to use the camera with HTML5 and have you seen bb10s HTML5 rating? pretty impressive. Do you think you cant do things with BB10 natively you cant do with the browser? What type of apps do you use/make that do not require an internet connection? Have you gone to the stub hub website on an iOS device?

I'd hope app developpers would help push HTML5 since in the end it benefits competition for competing platforms and doesn't perpetuate this perceived app store advatage further aided by certain content providers blocking or not working with competing platforms to either create apps or allow browser compatibility.

[RECOOL]

I with hurds here Webapps/html app fusion is way forward funnily enough.

Apps as a whole should end soon. There's very little need for the mass off apps.The youtube app we got on the Z is like html/app fusion I actually like it ,its great.This is the future most apps use the web anyway doing coding for each platform is dumb when you can deploy it on the web in a universal code.Where every smartphone user gets it no extra coding buidling apps and wasted resources.You gain even more users as its the web huge space..

Only functonality tools should be apps like flashlights,sync software,editors,games,fancy trans,video chat,msg,dlna remotes.Social media where you upload pics should not be apps.The fact its on X platform when its not an exclusive defeats the purpose of being social.These sites are the ones looking for more users no?

I think ''web apps'' need to be pushed out some more its just the way forward and its for the better of consumers.

[Superfly_FR]

I understand that you will blindly bash Blackberry, and therefore any place that their current platform is inferior will somehow become a negative in your eyes. It's a sad, petty way to view the various other smartphone ecosystems though.
Your reply just reeks of jealousy. (------------ I just have to point out this jealousy thing to me is hilarious. You honestly think I'm jealous of android or iOS. Guess what, I use an iphone right now and at any moment I could go and buy a android for cheap. How could I possibly be jealous. Its more likely that you are jealous because you as a developper have spent time learning and investing into these app ecosystems that you develop for and it wouldn't be an easy transition for you. Me, I'm a consumer and I don't care. I can flip flop back and forth platforms whenever I want).

I just took your quote there and switched it for you. You obviously don't read everything I write. I say app stores are fine. They are good for native/high-end/specific apps. I'm against the applification of the web (Think Basillie said that, so we know to the masses he must be wrong since the media pumped the idea he was a bad CEO, despite the fact hes genius). Do you know what a vested interested is? I have none when it comes to apps. I just want there to be competition and believing that downloading all web content from an app store is completely stupid but its the idea thats been pushed on us and apples doing there best effort to continue. Seriously, why am I being asked to download an app for every website I got to in my browser that works perfectly fine. We dont need apps for everything, I'd argue for most things we don't Just good a browser, preferably one that doesn't reload everytime like iOS, but that goes the same for their apps. I think you see things in extremes and think you need apps for everything, but thats what you are going to think since you make apps.

What apps have you made so I can check them out? Any for ios? What type of things can you do with native in your apps you couldn't do with the web? These would be much better arguments than labelling me as a BB fanboy (which I agree I am, they are just doing some amazing stuff no one else is). Have you seen BB10 ability to use the camera with HTML5 and have you seen bb10s HTML5 rating? pretty impressive. Do you think you cant do things with BB10 natively you cant do with the browser? What type of apps do you use/make that do not require an internet connection? Have you gone to the stub hub website on an iOS device?

I'd hope app developpers would help push HTML5 since in the end it benefits competition for competing platforms and doesn't perpetuate this perceived app store advatage further aided by certain content providers blocking or not working with competing platforms to either create apps or allow browser compatibility.

I believe there's some missunderstanding here. While I can attest that HTML5 is at its top in BB10 Browser and apps, there's still a real gap to fill on other platforms. Not only mobile ones. When you look at current HTML5 compatibility list, just basically think "all under 400 points will be a mess for cross-platform development".
I do not doubt HTML5 IS the future for many, many apps. But we have to understand that BlackBerry10 is an exception here; that particular exception I point as a great differenciator. The advance BB have today will provide them a great advantage in the very near future. And yeah, I push HTML5 as hard as I can.

P.S: and developping in HTML5 today is to me (newcomer in mobile apps) by far the more extensible and affordable choice.

[mikeo007]

I believe there's some missunderstanding here. While I can attest that HTML5 is at its top in BB10 Browser and apps, there's still a real gap to fill on other platforms. Not only mobile ones. When you look at current HTML5 compatibility list, just basically think "all under 400 points will be a mess for cross-platform development".
I do not doubt HTML5 IS the future for many, many apps. But we have to understand that BlackBerry10 is an exception here; that particular exception I point as a great differenciator. The advance BB have today will provide them a great advantage in the very near future. And yeah, I push HTML5 as hard as I can.

P.S: and developping in HTML5 today is to me (newcomer in mobile apps) by far the more extensible and affordable choice.

I appreciate you trying, but they're not getting it. That or they're just insistent on not paying attention to truth since they consider it trolling (even though my compliment to Blackberry is apparently seen as a troll).

I'm not sure why it's so hard to see the difference between Web APPS and Web SITES.
Apps built with web technology are not the same as Web sites. They use the same languages, but that's where the similarities end.

Blackberry webworks allows a whole host of APIs that are not available to Web Sites.
Apps also allow for offline functionality which you don't have with web sites.
An efficient app will always be quicker than a website.
Even the same app designed to run as a website will still be quicker as an app, not to mention lighter on data use.

Also, as Superfly said, HTML5 is far from a standard on other platforms. Just because Blackberry has chosen to do a fantastic job of supporting HTML5 and giving developers a great toolkit, doesn't mean that it should be the chosen standard for all platforms. It's just one of the options.

RIM had bet on Java in the past, and it failed. Yet they're still including support for Java (Android) because it is currently more universally supported for applications than anything else.

[Jean-luc_Picard]

Blackberry webworks allows a whole host of APIs that are not available to Web Sites.
Apps also allow for offline functionality which you don't have with web sites.

I could be wrong (and I'm sure somebody will correct me whether or not I am), but I thought that if you took a WebWorks application and ran it uncompiled on the device it would still be fine. I know at least that the stuff I've worked on with WebWorks ran fine by just sticking the html, css, and js files (and png, and so on) into a folder on the device and opening index.html through the file manager. If this is the case then website developers could just redirect by user agents so that BB10 users get the version created with BB10 Webworks, Android users get the version with Android Web tools, and iOS and feature phone users get the standard mobile version. That way would be much better, since you'd still get the same basic experience of an app, but the developers would only have to know different APIs for different platforms instead needing to know Objective C, C++/QML, and Java. The performance would likely be lower, but if it isn't too heavy of an application then it shouldn't really be noticeable. As for offline support, many browsers have this built in, and it wouldn't be too hard to do I'd think. Also, I'm fairly sure there was a thread somewhere in this forum where people noticed that one of the major ereaders had a website that worked offline, so I guess it's possible from the server side.

[Superfly_FR]

I
Apps built with web technology are not the same as Web sites. They use the same languages, but that's where the similarities end.

Blackberry webworks allows a whole host of APIs that are not available to Web Sites.
Apps also allow for offline functionality which you don't have with web sites.
An efficient app will always be quicker than a website.

the problem is not the standard witch is mature. Web apps can perfectly handle local storage (files, DB) and DL initial data in the same way you DL them when you get an app in a store. The real problem is consistency between navigators/OS, notably to access hardware features.
Please read me right ; the turn is at the end of the year IMHO; prepare to see all major browsers over 400 by then.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

[mikeo007]

I could be wrong (and I'm sure somebody will correct me whether or not I am), but I thought that if you took a WebWorks application and ran it uncompiled on the device it would still be fine. I know at least that the stuff I've worked on with WebWorks ran fine by just sticking the html, css, and js files (and png, and so on) into a folder on the device and opening index.html through the file manager. If this is the case then website developers could just redirect by user agents so that BB10 users get the version created with BB10 Webworks, Android users get the version with Android Web tools, and iOS and feature phone users get the standard mobile version. That way would be much better, since you'd still get the same basic experience of an app, but the developers would only have to know different APIs for different platforms instead needing to know Objective C, C++/QML, and Java. The performance would likely be lower, but if it isn't too heavy of an application then it shouldn't really be noticeable. As for offline support, many browsers have this built in, and it wouldn't be too hard to do I'd think. Also, I'm fairly sure there was a thread somewhere in this forum where people noticed that one of the major ereaders had a website that worked offline, so I guess it's possible from the server side.

Negative. Try something that's not native javascript. Try a call like blackberry.ui.cover

Your suggestion of only having to know different APIs would work with ANY programming language. HTML5 and JS/CSS have no advantage there except that they are used for the web. That is also their biggest disadvantage.

Why not make C++ the standard across all platforms? Add some more standard libraries and you've basically got the same situation, except with increased speed and interoperability with other pre-built functions.

[Superfly_FR]

@jean-luc you're right, but you point the fragmentation, even if the effort is not huge. HTML5 will win the day it will disappear (for fondamental features)

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

[Superfly_FR]

Negative. Try something that's not native javascript. Try a call like blackberry.ui.cover

That's not HTML5 that's BlackBerry U.I.
The "Tile cover" features is BlackBerry specific.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

[Superfly_FR]

That's not HTML5 that's BlackBerry U.I.
The "Tile cover" features is BlackBerry specific.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

I mean it's not supported in browser apps. Even on BB10.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

[mikeo007]

I mean it's not supported in browser apps. Even on BB10.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

Correct, it's only supported using the Webworks API. Which is why I said it's a function that WebApps can use, but not web pages.

[Superfly_FR]

Correct, it's only supported using the Webworks API. Which is why I said it's a function that WebApps can use, but not web pages.

All HTML5 features you can use in WebWorks can be used in Web apps. The problem here is how to protect your code. This is why webapps are mostly content related.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

[mikeo007]

All HTML5 features you can use in WebWorks can be used in Web apps. The problem here is how to protect your code. This is why webapps are mostly content related.

Posted using CrackBerry App on BB10

Let me try to rephrase this...

Yes, all available HTML5 features can be used in Webworks apps. But not all Webworks features can be used in HTML5 web pages.

Case in point, the blackberry.ui.cover example that I mentioned earlier. 100% usable function call in my Webworks app. Completely unusable on a webpage running in the Blackberry browser.

[Superfly_FR]

Let me try to rephrase this...

Yes, all available HTML5 features can be used in Webworks apps. But not all Webworks features can be used in HTML5 web pages.

Case in point, the blackberry.ui.cover example that I mentioned earlier. 100% usable function call in my Webworks app. Completely unusable on a webpage running in the Blackberry browser.

You cannot ask a standard to embed non standard features. The example you give has no real sense in a browser context. So, yes, you can do a little more in apps, but I believe this is not the point.

Posted via CB10

[mikeo007]

You cannot ask a standard to embed non standard features. The example you give has no real sense in a browser context. So, yes, you can do a little more in apps, but I believe this is not the point.

Posted via CB10

It was the point I was trying to make when I stated that there are many things you can do with apps that you can't with web pages. OS-level features are just one example.

[Superfly_FR]

It was the point I was trying to make when I stated that there are many things you can do with apps that you can't with web pages. OS-level features are just one example.

You can address OS level features that are relevant in the context. You can, for instance, invoke camera.

Posted via CB10

[Superfly_FR]

You can address OS level features that are relevant in the context. You can, for instance, invoke camera.

Posted via CB10

Don't forget WebWorks is basically a javascript library...

Posted via CB10

[mikeo007]

You can address OS level features that are relevant in the context. You can, for instance, invoke camera.

Posted via CB10

Only because there's a universal API. Just like file picker. Would be pretty boring if all devices only offered the exact same features though, no?

[Jean-luc_Picard]

Negative. Try something that's not native javascript. Try a call like blackberry.ui.cover

Your suggestion of only having to know different APIs would work with ANY programming language. HTML5 and JS/CSS have no advantage there except that they are used for the web. That is also their biggest disadvantage.

Why not make C++ the standard across all platforms? Add some more standard libraries and you've basically got the same situation, except with increased speed and interoperability with other pre-built functions.

They main reason why to make web apps standard instead of standardization C++ or Java would be that web apps are already on all platforms. Some platforms are C-based and some are Java based, and if C++ became the standard then the Java based languages (in this space that would be Android and Legacy BlackBerry) would have to rewrite the entire OS, whereas to make web apps standard all that you'd have to do is improve your browser. I'm certainly not trying to make the case that all apps should be web apps, but I certainly feel that there are far too many apps that don't need to be apps. Take the CB10 app for example. There are two reasons I use it. One is that I much prefer the UI of it over the mobile site, and another is that it's more reliable about keeping me logged in. Surely the UI could be duplicated via WebWorks if you used bbui.js? I'll admit that I haven't tried, but surely it's possible. As for keeping me logged in, I'm sure that that is a "feature" to make sure that I don't log in and then forget about it and give the phone to a friend (it's easier to forget what all your logged into in the browser than to forget what apps you have, and I've seen a lot of websites give this reasoning). Another reason I'm sure a lot of people have would be push notifications. I'll admit, I'm not sure how you would do that in the browser without keeping that webpage open (though admittedly the app in its current form must be open in order to receive notifications), but then CrackBerry would have to ask themselves whether it's worth making an app so that people can have push notifications as opposed to a whole list of things. Also, if Web Apps become major, then some sort of a notification system will likely come, just as a notification framework is here for native apps. Not much use now, but if we're going for potential then it's all there. Certainly though, apps that are not content based shouldn't have to be Web apps (though it would be nice to only have to deal with the one set of languages for everything you do, instead of Web languages for Web sites and C++/QML for native and so on). Games are best (on mobile devices) to be their own apps, as opposed to a Web link. At the moment, most apps that deal with your files are also better as apps (document editing, Video editing, file manager, DOSBOX, etc.). Theoretically, everything, including games, could be a Web app (and if it all was then browsers and processing power would probably improve out of necessity to the point where you could play hardcore games via your browser), and conversely everything could be its own app. Way too many people think of only those two options, with no Grey area, when in reality neither is the best option for every use. I just wish that HTML5 would mature enough that it could be a viable platform for more than just blogs without push notifications. But anyway, let's get back on track. I think that it would be great to be able to convert iOS apps to HTML5, but I have serious doubts that it would be at all effective because of the huge variances between the languages. If they could get it to work though, it would be great for everyone because it would give everybody more apps (specifically the 2% of iOS apps that the developers would actually convert, but every little bit counts).

[Superfly_FR]

But anyway, let's get back on track. I think that it would be great to be able to convert iOS apps to HTML5, but I have serious doubts that it would be at all effective because of the huge variances between the languages. If they could get it to work though, it would be great for everyone because it would give everybody more apps (specifically the 2% of iOS apps that the developers would actually convert, but every little bit counts).

I believe the porter tool deserves its name; it's a tool intended to facilitate portage; lot of code is pretty easy to port, while some portions just can't "as-is" and have to be rewritten to match the language logic. I think there's far much more than 2% (more likely 50% IMHO) of iOs apps that can be 90% ported automatically ... but that's an assumption and we have to check it against reality.
If there's iOs dev around willing to test-drive with a simple app, I could help on the HTML5/JS/CSS part ...

[hurds]

@mike007

re-posted:
What apps have you made so I can check them out? Any for ios? What type of things can you do with native in your apps you couldn't do with the web? These would be much better arguments than labelling me as a BB fanboy (which I agree I am, they are just doing some amazing stuff no one else is). Have you seen BB10 ability to use the camera with HTML5 and have you seen bb10s HTML5 rating? pretty impressive. Do you think you cant do things with BB10 natively you cant do with the browser? What type of apps do you use/make that do not require an internet connection? Have you gone to the stub hub website on an iOS device?


Safari has a pretty bad HTML5 score. I thought Apple wanted to push HTML5. Could they have been lying? Because I can't imagine HTML5s emergence could be a good thing for their app store.

Edit:

@superfly

You pointed out web browsers used on desktops. I dont think this is really relevant here. I presume all the app developers here develop for mobile. This would have been a much better comparison and as you likely know most mobile platforms are near 400. Mobile is the future.

http://html5test.com/results/mobile.html

[Superfly_FR]

You pointed out web browsers used on desktops. I dont think this is really relevant here. I presume all the app developers here develop for mobile. This would have been a much better comparison and as you likely know most mobile platforms are near 400. Mobile is the future.

The HTML5 test - How well does your browser support HTML5?

Sure, but as you can see, there's still major actors under the 400.
I firmly believe that HTML5 (and adaptative design) will explode the day we (web/mobile developers) can develop united "connected sites" for all worlds and devices. This is the promise of HTML5 ... whitch is just a number ... and mostly the so late emergence of a REAL standard. (crossing fingers)