02-25-11 02:20 PM
28 12
tools
  1. sober2ndthought's Avatar
    I saw this very interesting article on the Globe and Mail:
    The rise and fall of the app - The Globe and Mail

    Very relevant considering how RIM is pushing webworks and flash on the Playbook.
    02-23-11 11:39 PM
  2. JRSCCivic98's Avatar
    Yes and no. I won't disagree that there is virtually nothing you cannot do within a very good browser, but on a mobile device with screen based controls and screen size restrictions, the idea of an app to replace a website is one of redesigning the user experience to make it more streamlined and useful from that platform than it would be if they'd just use the original website to do it. Good examples of this are streaming radio sites vs their app counterpart and remote tools like LogMeIn website vs their app counterpart.

    I think this is where you'll see the final deciding point. There are a few things you cannot do within a browser natively yet, like rightclick functionality, that the app versions of these tools allow. There is however a ton of other apps that become useless if the browser on the mobile device is really good and works 100% with the site; banking apps vs websites being one of them in my opinion.

    The last aspect is resource utilization. Running a browser window for a website might take more resources than just having an app for the same functionality. In a time where this is still a concern for the limited hardware designs we're working with, it's certaining something to consider.
    02-24-11 12:27 AM
  3. darkmanx2g's Avatar
    With a keyboard and mouse setup of course there isn't much need for apps. On a touch base experience an app is efficient and dynamic between the user and OS.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-24-11 01:29 AM
  4. sandmanfvr's Avatar
    Websites will never, well not for a while even with HTML5, be as good as an app. Browsers process HTML, CSS, Java, XML, Flash, and ad scripts inbedded crap that the website will load slower. A great app, even if you did an app for a pc, will just load what data it needs thus load data from the net faster and uses less data. Take the imdb app. It runs really fast, and just pops up the info and pictures you need. Site isn't to bad, but it can load slow with all that crap loading just to see the small bit of info you want to see.
    02-24-11 03:18 AM
  5. bullshark's Avatar
    Been reading about this on and off since the 90's, first on PC and now for mobile device, it hasn't happened yet and, unless the reliability of every link in the web infrastructure get close to 100% up time, not gonna happen.

    For games and silly things like that, sure, why not, but mission critical applications? No way.
    02-24-11 03:39 AM
  6. kb5zht's Avatar
    Well I don't think it will ever be the case either but I do think the online java type games will improve over time.

    As tablet and phone ram increase as well as processor speed, I think that apps will always stay ahead. Tablet are now getting up to 64gb of storage and I bet by next year that could possibly double. I also have no doubt in my mind we will see quad core orocessors in tablets; I wonder if tablet games will rise and beuon the same level as console (xbox 360 style) and pc desktop games, perhaps a whole listing of their own on amazon perhaps? I think tablets are going to break through.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-24-11 06:39 AM
  7. drjay868's Avatar
    I look forward to the day that apps are gone and I no longer need to take the time or manage memory space to load the apps I need/want onto my device. I just don't see that happening this decade. The Apple marketing machine has pounded it into too many people's heads for too long that its the apps that make a device good.

    Edit: And RIM and Android are only encouraging that thought process.
    Last edited by drjay868; 02-24-11 at 06:59 AM.
    02-24-11 06:56 AM
  8. Livett's Avatar
    What happens if the web server goes down?

    Oh nooooo! I knooww!
    02-24-11 07:06 AM
  9. drjay868's Avatar
    What happens if the web server goes down?

    Oh nooooo! I knooww!
    If the web server goes down, then your gmail app (insert web-based app) is useless too, isn't it?
    02-24-11 07:43 AM
  10. peter9477's Avatar
    If the web server goes down, then your gmail app (insert web-based app) is useless too, isn't it?
    Not necessarily. At a minimum, you could review old mails, and compose new ones. (Duh?)
    02-24-11 08:09 AM
  11. Livett's Avatar
    If the web server goes down, then your gmail app (insert web-based app) is useless too, isn't it?
    So all apps are like gmail? I'd say a minority are.
    02-24-11 08:20 AM
  12. Kerms's Avatar
    Yes and no. I won't disagree that there is virtually nothing you cannot do within a very good browser, but on a mobile device with screen based controls and screen size restrictions, the idea of an app to replace a website is one of redesigning the user experience to make it more streamlined and useful from that platform than it would be if they'd just use the original website to do it. Good examples of this are streaming radio sites vs their app counterpart and remote tools like LogMeIn website vs their app counterpart.

    I think this is where you'll see the final deciding point. There are a few things you cannot do within a browser natively yet, like rightclick functionality, that the app versions of these tools allow. There is however a ton of other apps that become useless if the browser on the mobile device is really good and works 100% with the site; banking apps vs websites being one of them in my opinion.

    The last aspect is resource utilization. Running a browser window for a website might take more resources than just having an app for the same functionality. In a time where this is still a concern for the limited hardware designs we're working with, it's certaining something to consider.
    I hate to bring this up but what you said right there has been my man gripe about the PlayBook and email/calendar for non BB users.

    I want to be able get my Exchange Mail/Yahoo etc in a mail app. The majority of the response has been use the web browser,leave it open and stop whining, my comment has been the web interface isn't a good design for a 7" device, nor would I get notifications, then said look at the Bridge email interface vs a web base and then tell me which one you want to use. It's suppose to come later I suppose

    Anyway you made good points on why apps will be around for a while. Apple also in the beginning said you didn't need apps and we see how that turned out.
    02-24-11 08:28 AM
  13. Kerms's Avatar
    I look forward to the day that apps are gone and I no longer need to take the time or manage memory space to load the apps I need/want onto my device. I just don't see that happening this decade. The Apple marketing machine has pounded it into too many people's heads for too long that its the apps that make a device good.

    Edit: And RIM and Android are only encouraging that thought process.
    You do know that Apple stance at one time web based was the way to go..
    02-24-11 08:32 AM
  14. Skeevecr's Avatar
    So all apps are like gmail? I'd say a minority are.
    While it will be a minority since the majority of apps on the appstore are games, you shouldn't underestimate just how many of the other current apps on the ipad or phones are little more than a customised front-end for a website due to the limitations of the device using it and just as useless if the server is down as somebody accessing the web directly.
    02-24-11 09:51 AM
  15. drjay868's Avatar
    So all apps are like gmail? I'd say a minority are.
    Obviously not all are like gmail, but anything that uses the internet is what I'm talking about. Pandora, Nobex, Where, Poynt, Weatherbug, ESPN, YouTube, etc. These are the types of apps I'm talking about. If those web servers go down, the app is useless, right? Obviously I'm not going to go online to make sure my phone gets alerts.


    You do know that Apple stance at one time web based was the way to go..
    Yes, but that isn't their stance NOW, nor has it been the last few years. I don't see them changing their mind any time soon either. Do you?
    Last edited by drjay868; 02-24-11 at 10:53 AM.
    02-24-11 10:50 AM
  16. Kerms's Avatar
    I know it's not their stance now. My point was that Apple originally went with the web app format.

    They realized that it wasn't the way to go then went to the app market format.
    02-24-11 10:56 AM
  17. sober2ndthought's Avatar
    Well, that's not the impression I got from reading the article. The impression I got was the app as we know it today could be as good as dead, the reason being the lack of crossplatform support. Blackberry, Palm, and Android are all suffering from a lack of quality apps on their own app stores. Yes Android has 100,000 apps, but look closely many are repeats of the same app, or are trail versions of the same app or the app isn't very good.

    Anyways the impression I got was the app would be replaced by something which resembled an app but rather than it being written in a native sdk it would be written in a web sdk. Such as Adobe Air or Adobe Webworks. That way it could be cross platform (minus iOS of course)

    But even if it sticks the app on the web, I challenge any one to compare touch.facebook.com to facebook app on any platform. The experience is always better on the touch site than the app.
    02-24-11 11:03 AM
  18. JRSCCivic98's Avatar
    Sober, writing something in Adobe Air now requires the user to have the Air engine on their platform to run it. On the PB it's not an issue because it was included and designed this way, but you won't be running an Air coded app on a PC that doesn't have Adobe Air loaded in it. How is that better than just writing the app and compiling it into an exe so it runs in the native environment already in place?

    I know that's a bit different than what's being discussed here, but writing and app in C++ or Flash or Air is the same thing as opposed to just having a web portal for said app. I don't view apps developed in different SDKs as not being the same. An example of a web portal to replace an app would be OWA in place of Outlook. It's a website and not an app that needs to be installed to run. Does that make sense?
    02-24-11 11:26 AM
  19. Intosh's Avatar
    Both will co-exist but web apps can and will, as the web technologies evolve, naturally replace lots of the native apps that have no good reason to be native in the first place (e.g. apps that are essentially a custom front-end of an existing web site/service).

    Web apps are just more efficient for developers in terms of updates and deployments, and more convenient for consumers in terms of apps management and portability. Web apps are reliable enough for MOST consumer use and even for some non-mission critical professional use. Web-based office apps (word processors, spreadsheets) can do the job for the millions of casual users.

    With time, once the web technologies can do the job, the web browser and web apps will grab most of the user's time, just like it is the case now in the desktop world.

    As for the screen based controls and screen size restrictions argument, currently, it is a valid argument. But there is no reason why web technologies cannot overcome this in the future. Notification is a bit trickier to accomplish with web apps but most don't absolutely need that. In any case, as mentionned, both native and web apps will co-exist to accomodate various needs.

    Update: Regarding Apple's stance, IMO, Apple had a native apps master plan since day 1. Web apps were only a temporary response/distraction from them. There is no way they could have changed direction so fast and offer a potent SDK and app store (with all required hardware infrastructure, men power -- to review and validate apps! -- and policies behind it) if they didn't have native apps in mind since the very beginning.
    Last edited by Intosh; 02-24-11 at 11:37 AM.
    02-24-11 11:28 AM
  20. sober2ndthought's Avatar
    @civic the Air engine runs on Android as well. So that may not be an issue. Certianlly Adobe Air has had some success on the desktop so I wouldn't be surprised to see it have good success on mobile phone.
    02-24-11 02:44 PM
  21. JRSCCivic98's Avatar
    @civic the Air engine runs on Android as well. So that may not be an issue. Certianlly Adobe Air has had some success on the desktop so I wouldn't be surprised to see it have good success on mobile phone.
    I dunno, I haven't been too impressed with Adobe Air coded apps myself. Maybe it's the coders behind them, but they just don't impress me. I think the ideals behind Adobe's developer platforms has always been one of making it easier and simpler for people to code stuff, regardless of if the dev platform was efficient or not. Flash is a good example of this.
    02-24-11 05:11 PM
  22. hastings's Avatar
    The writing is already on the wall.

    Applications that are designed to deliver information and content will almost certainly migrate back to open standards on the "web". As more platforms emerge, developers and companies will start to look for ways to simplify their development process. Smartphones and tablets are already beginning to support open standards through improved web browsers, and I fully expect this to continue.

    Games will obviously stay off the web for a whole bunch of reasons. Multimedia applications will probably be a mixed bag for quite a while.

    I work for a company right now (not BlingBerry) that has an app with over 5 million downloads across all platforms, and we're actively investigating ways to combine these apps and stick 'em on the web. It's just way too much work and maintenance to support so many different devices and platforms these days.
    02-24-11 07:09 PM
  23. sober2ndthought's Avatar
    I dunno, I haven't been too impressed with Adobe Air coded apps myself. Maybe it's the coders behind them, but they just don't impress me. I think the ideals behind Adobe's developer platforms has always been one of making it easier and simpler for people to code stuff, regardless of if the dev platform was efficient or not. Flash is a good example of this.
    I would think it is the coding of the apps. I used Air Apps quite a bit in my last job which was very Social Media intensive, the apps I used were great. TweetDeck in particular is amazing. So perhaps it was just the apps you came across.
    Last edited by sober2ndthought; 02-24-11 at 10:34 PM.
    02-24-11 10:25 PM
  24. Skeevecr's Avatar
    I know it's not their stance now. My point was that Apple originally went with the web app format.

    They realized that it wasn't the way to go then went to the app market format.
    Odds are that they made the switch for two reasons that had nothing to do with whether they were the better option for consumer or not, they probably made the change because other platforms already had native apps and native apps also gave them more control.
    02-25-11 04:45 AM
  25. drjay868's Avatar
    Odds are that they made the switch for two reasons that had nothing to do with whether they were the better option for consumer or not, they probably made the change because other platforms already had native apps and native apps also gave them more control.
    I agree there. I think the idea was always to go to apps eventually because it gave them more power over the user and an opportunity to make more money.

    However, I get what you were saying Daps. Their stance originally was that they wanted things to be web based. I just think that was only a temporary stance and they knew it but needed time to get their ducks in a row.
    02-25-11 07:09 AM
28 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD