(Page 2 of 2)
Sheth says that there are a number of advantages for developers who build mobile applications via the Web. While there are only three major operating systems for desktops that developers need to learn, there are tens of mobile-device platforms with various different requirements. Applications can be built on the Web and need to be modified only slightly for different mobile devices. "Given the number of platforms we have in the mobile space," says Sheth, "we really need a unifying platform . . . That's why Google is so heavily investing in the Web becoming the common platform."
Sheth notes that many developers are already familiar with writing software for the Web. Another advantage of mobile Web apps, he says, is the ability to roll out an update without needing to deploy new code to individual devices. This means that updates can happen more frequently and without the need for users to take action.
Nonetheless, mobile Web apps may have limited capabilities in the near future. "Apps that will work in this environment will be more text heavy or static," says Sharma. They won't be the type of apps that need to be constantly updated from a server. "But when you get into games or applications that require [device] support, it becomes tougher to develop applications that are browser only," he says.
In the long term, there may be little difference between mobile Web apps and the platform-specific ones that run on today's devices, says Matt Womer, who is the World Wide Web Consortium's Mobile Web Initiative lead for North America. He notes that users of the iPhone and Android can create widgets that represent the Gmail Web app and place them in the phone's application palette. "The gap between an app and a Web app is narrowing," Womer says. "The future will be more Web apps than platform-specific applications that require some sort of specialized knowledge to program. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out with the app stores when everyone starts launching Web apps," he adds.
Womer says that forthcoming features of HTML 5 will be available in the coming months, although it could take years for the entire standard to be approved. He notes that geolocation is already available, enabling programs in a phone's browser to tap into the location of a user. And some future features could allow Web software to access data from accelerometers, light sensors, and the microphone.
"I've been doing mobile stuff for years," Womer says, "and this is the fastest rate that I've seen things go in the mobile world."
The race is on to create an app store compatible with all devices and operating systems.
Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Market
This is an interesting article about technology, platforms, applications, and content delivery. But it is very short on any market assessment or critical analysis.
It is true that Apple's iPhone was initially released with web APIs and they supported web-based development from third parties. In many instances (CNN, FoxNews, Wunderground, etc.) mobile platform were created by large content providers. The same will probably be true for the Google OS as well.
However, native APIs that can take full advantage of device hardware have proven to be much more attractive to developer than web-based APIs. Richer content can be created and manipulated by the user versus web-based APIs. In addition, surfing the web is a cell phone convenience, and not superior to surfing on a computer which can provide a higher fidelity experience to the user. It is a convenience.
When Apple released the SDK for the iPhone and simultaneously released a content deliver channel for the iPhone (iTunes App Store), they accommodated to the needs of the customer. The customer wants a boutique-like shopping experience (as can be seen with the Amazon web site and iTunes music store), they want tight integration so that the experience is tight, seamless and fluid. They also want an easy and standardized way to pay for content (as can be seen also at Amazon with 1-click and of Apple's online storefronts). With an iPhone you can connect to the App Store, search for content, read reviews and see ratings, make a decision, and then quickly pay for the content and have it delivered to your phone by only typing your iTunes account password. This is a very convenient user experience.
It is much more difficult to log onto a web site with a mobile device, enter your credit card number, personal billing information, and click through a few windows to pay for content. Count the amount of clicks and characters you have to type to purchase software online versus purchasing it from an iPhone. There are dramatically fewer steps on the iPhone, and that makes it easier for customers to purchase products. Again, it's about the user experience. This is where the Google OS diverges. The OS works great but once you leave the OS, the user experience can very greatly.
In addition, the iTunes App store is a marketing channel. You can put up any web page and embed a link to the iTunes store which brings the user to the product where they can purchase it quickly. The store also contains external links to developer's web sites. It's a two-way marketing channel, and one of those channels is provided by Apple. Support and maintenance of the channel, which can reach millions of users, costs only 30% of an application's sales. In many cases developers spend in excess of 30% the cost of the product to market it without a guarantee that it will sell. 30% is a large margin for marketing, but the iTunes App store provides more than just marketing. It's an interactive feedback loop for developers.
I also do not think that Google's platform will be as successful as it's touted to be. We have yet to see significant Linux desktop adoption and that was touted to dethrone Microsoft. Linux does well in server environments or other embedded applications, but it does not deliver a seamless user experience. Google will experience the same symptoms because it is allowing developers more freedom to create unique user experiences. Like in the early days of Windows and more commonly in Linux, the lack of consistence and control creates user fatigue and they become disinterested in the platform. Handheld manufacturers will also fragment the market further by writing custom code for their handsets that deviate away from any standard-setting Google may try to impose at a later date.
When you allow multiple parties to do whatever they want with something, they will all try to make it unique from the next guy. In some cases it will be spectacular. In other cases it will be an abysmal mess. In all cases, it will be just okay (think about a bell curve distribution).
It is for the reasons listed above that Google's phone OS many not be as successful as you've described above.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
cowsandmilk
5 Comments
This article is absolutely ridiculous. It acts like Google has done something to avoid the control of Apple.
This was Apple's original vision. They wanted people to just build web apps for the iPhone. They are overjoyed at this as it is proof of what they were saying from the beginning; it is possible to build a rich dynamic app using just safari on the iPhone.
The article then goes on to act like this web app will work on any mobile device, which is a patent lie. Only webkit-based Android and the iPhone have the technology.
Reply
Kate Greene
17 Comments
Re:
Hi cowsandmilk, I agree that it was Apple's original vision to have developers build Web apps for the iPhone, but in opening the App Store, it showed that it was also interested in an alternative business model for iPhone apps, one in which it controlled the distribution of and profited directly from the popularity of downloadable applications.
Your claim that the article acts like this web app will work on any mobile device is utterly unfounded.
From the article: "More powerful mobile Web apps won't become widespread overnight, though. Google is leveraging Web browser capabilities that exist on a relatively small number of devices: the iPhone, the iPod Touch, and the current (and forthcoming) Android phones. These devices run browsers based on the open-source Webkit code base..."
Reply
davemtl
2 Comments
The important point everyone misses
As mentioned previously Apple first started pushing this approach with moderate success. It is the developers which insisted on an SDK. The thing everyone got, which finally made the app store such a huge success, was a gateway from a known and trusted commerce to the client. By using iTunes we (includes me) finally could feel comfortable buying apps as though they were songs. I never ask what the band Coldplay will do with my credit card numbers of personal data because I am buying from Apple not Coldplay. In the app environment there are equivalents but not nearly as well known by the public as iTunes and it's 6 Billion downloads. That is where the true story is. In fact these web apps will only succeed if 1) they are free or 2) they are supported by ads. OR MAYBE we buy them through the appstore and access them through the web. This way the credit card buying stuff is done through a trusted third party, Apple, and the deployment vehicle is the choice of the developer.
Reply
pithier
1 Comment
Re:
Good correction. I recommend that any article about Apple be vetted by someone in your organization who is an Apple fanboy. This would help avoid embarrassing articles like this in the future.
Clearly the author had no idea that Apple had promoted just such applications for the first year or so of the iphone.
Reply
William_Volk
1 Comment
Re: Web Apps
In fact our company (PlayScreen, formerly MyNuMo) had a collection of advanced web apps for the iPhone ... some of which (according to Apple) were the most popular web apps (games etc.) on the iPhone:
http://www.playscreen.com/iphone/fun4iphone.htm
You can play these on Safari or Firefox.
Reply