Slashdot Mirror
The (im)Mobility of Web 2.0 Apps
narramissic writes "So many Web 2.0 apps seem like a natural fit for use on mobile phones -- more so, in fact, than the PCs they were written for. Take for example, Google maps or Flickr or any of the myriad social networking sites. Frankly, I wonder why anyone would even want to use them while sitting at a desk. And yet the reality of using those apps on cell phones is solidly disappointing because of the inherent constraints of mobile phones and networks. This article gets deeper into the ups and downs of reworking Web 2.0 apps for use on mobile phones."
Is because I have a huge ass screen and a very fast connection. My phone can't match either of those.
The article seems to carry as a given that layering 2.0 (fill in your favorite definition of what the really is) into the mobile architectures. If I were to consider all of the times I've been frustrated with mobile web experiences, and there have been many, I'd say 99.9% of my frustration has been and continues to be real estate, and screen quality.
Yeah, there may have been a couple of times where I'd wish for faster refresh, but when all is said and done, I'm going crazy trying to establish any kind of gestalt with the mobile web experience. Heck, I'd even say I'd prefer simple text interaction -- not an easy assignment for developers required to sandwich ads into the presentation space.
I know there are some who say we can solve this darned form factor thingy -- I don't think it's soluble. At some point, smaller is just too small, no matter the "quality" of that smallness. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, technology may someday be capable of squeezing a phone, camera, video, music, tv, all onto something the size of the head of a pin. So?
The article mentions "ShoZu", a mobile client that lets mobile users update flickr photos (adding comments)... changing the experience from a 165 second-71.4kb ordeal to a 16 second-3.25kb ordeal. Yeah, the improvement is significant, but I'm not meeting many people who: find adding comments to flickr photos so urgent they MUST do so on their phones; nor are much inclined to do so given the capability.
(personal anecdote: The whole family replaced/upgraded cell phones about four months ago. It was the first time we'd had phones with the builtin cameras -- something I'd never cared about or wanted. However it was intriguing, and fun -- the whole family took pics, swapped pictures and videos, created ringtones, created personalized wallpapers, for one day! Four months later, we all still have the same wall papers we created that day, none of us has sent a single other picture to each other. It's a novelty -- it wears off -- fast!)
The more I see "Web 2.0" (TM) on Slashdot, the more I think it might be real.
Phones, Blackberries, PDAs, and even (my personal favorite) the Nintendo DS are all restricted by a small number of buttons and tiny screen real estate. Ergo, they often need overhauls of their entire front end to accomodate touch-screens, keypads, and voice commands, AND on top of all that they need their networking kicked around a little as well to account for the possiblity of sucky/no service.
The more that laptops and wi-fi become ubiquitous, the less that people will care about using other devices for more than what they WANT to use them for. Yes, having Google Earth and an audio version of Wikipedia would rock. But I don't see it happening.
Nuff said
Because the application is built on Ajax, like many other Web 2.0 services, it pushes data out to the client device in order to speed up future user requests
Does this author understand Ajax or Google Maps *at all*? Why bother reading this tripe?
... video demonstration here
a world in progress...
From TFA:
Browsers on the desktop have evolved along the lines of "do everything" applications, which is why the AJAX/Web 2.0 stuff kind of works in them. Lets face it, if you writing an application from scratch to do match the functionality of Google maps, say, you wouldn't start with a browser. Google maps is impressive because it actually works in a browser!
For Web 2.0 sites, 'lite' custom apps may be just the answer.
Dark Reflection
Web 2.0 can't take off on mobile phones when the you are being raped by the cell phone cell phone companys for data use, unlimited plans that are not unlimited, locked down phones, phones that only work with one company, and more.
Cameraphones would have lasting popularity if they didn't completely suck ass. They're worse than drug-store disposa-cams.
Take a picture with a cell-phone camera and you'll never want to look at it again. So what, indeed, is the point of a phone-cam?
It seems to me that the reason that a lot of these apps haven't made their way on to portable platforms (aside from the technical restraints) is simply because many of these services (myspace, facebook, etc) provide a way of mirroring one's real-world friends, acquaintances, &c on the internet and having even more ways of interacting with them. If I'm in the sort of situation where I'm likely to have access to a mobile platform (and not to a computer) odds are that I'm actually hanging out with those friends and acquaintances, and therefore don't need the added layers of communication and community that these sites provide...more than likely, a cellphone with text messaging will be more than sufficient for any "virtual" interactions while I'm in real-world space.
Of course, we're also now reaching a point where these technologies are creating social networks that didn't exist before the technology. I was in college (Zuckerberg's year, actually) when facebook made its debut, and I used it very occasionally as a way to check on my real-world friends' birthdays, cell #s, and so forth. My sister is a freshman now and facebook is an enormous part of "the college experience"; she's "friends" with tons of people she's never even met. This sort of surrogate "virtual" social life can be a lot of fun as a procrastination activity when you're stuck in a computer lab, at the office, or in any sort of setting where you have a computer and should be doing something else, but chances are that if you're running around with a cellphone and nothing else, you've got better things to do with your time anyway.
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
I smell Web 3.0 coming on, and it smells about as bad as 2.0.
I've used Google Maps on my phone (Motorola Razr, with TMobile service) and think it's pretty decent. It's about the only third-party application I've ever used on a phone, so I guess I don't have much of a basis for comparison, but it's useful.
The phone's directional buttons work fine to scroll the map or pointer around, and although entering addresses to get directions is a pain, it's not intolerably bad. Overall it was handy enough that I'm definitely going to keep it on my phone.
My main complaint with it has to do with the connection speed -- my phone's internet connection is slow enough (the Razr doesn't do 3G or EVOO or whatever it is that the broadband-over-GSM is called) and that means that zooming the map, which necessatiates a complete reload of the map images, is painful. On a phone with high-speed, it would probably be great.
In the case of a mapping system, the handiness of having it on a phone greatly outweighs the inherent limitations of the medium. I hope that on a phone with GPS capability, that it would do automatic follow-me navigation...that would really be slick, for a free service.
There's a break-even point where it becomes easier to just haul out one's laptop and hook it up to the phone and use the internet that way, which I think is about five minutes. As long as doing it through the phone doesn't take more than five minutes extra, it's fine -- because that's how long it would take me to haul out my laptop and set everything up, and then break it down and put it away when I was finished.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I don't want a cell either, so if the entire web2 thing could be moved to mobile platforms only, I'll be happy. I'll continue developing websites that do web1 right, and are accessible on any device.
(idea)
the majority of Web 2.0 sites require AJAX to do their magic, which will be both CPU and bandwidth intensive.
Given a non-3G phone's connection (GPRS, EDGE, or 1xRTT), AJAX's nonstop connection to the servers will be a huge bottleneck to the usability of the apps.
unless we downgrade the apps to WHTML-compatible, which nullifies any advantage Web 2.0 has over the vanilla 1.0 (whatever that is)
Of course craptastic Web 2.0 pages don't work on mobile devices. They use JavaScript like it's the high fructose corn syrup of the development world.
I can't get too mad at the article, though, because clearly 99% of the world's web authors are clueless about writing compliant, gracefully-degrading pages. If they made sure every page was at least minimally functional in lynx, mobile devices would easily be good enough.
Maybe some sort of "Mobile Device Compatible" certifications body would help. It doesn't even have to be a binary condition; they can be "compliant with level one mobile usage," "compliant with level two mobile usage," and so on.
The Internet is full. Go away.
So the world had this great language designed to run on small devices and it was perfect for the web... Microsoft poisoned it and Sun dropped the ball. So now we're imitating real applications in a scripting language that was intended to serve as glue for the real language.
And now we want to run that on our phones.
Sigh.
Pat Niemeyer
I understand the attraction of having one solution work for EVERYTHING, but I'm not really sure it is practical. BTW, a lot of web pages don't render well on my PSP, but Google is beautiful. Their low-key approach means that the Google home page renders perfectly without any scrolling. Many news sites are hopeless because of all the junk and advertising. Wish more people thought about this.
Whoever the nerd behind web 2.0 is needs to be shot and killed. Why? What the heck are you going to do with web 2.0 except kill your time? Del.icio.us has to be the biggest waste of a web site ever. digg it or whatever sucks balls too. anyone feel me out there?
Never mind Web 2.0 apps on my mobile, I'm still waiting for Web 1.0 pages to work half decent.
For better or worse, the Web seems to have settled on a header plus the two or three column layout. On a mobile, unless the site has been optimized (which very few are) you have to scroll down through the header (where every link usually ends up being a seperate line) then through everything on the left and right before you get to the content.
Actually, in the spirit of "picture worth 1000 words," let me SHOW you what the slashdot home page looks like on my BlackBerry 8700;
the first new article is in bold below -- See how far you have to scroll to see it?
So you can plan journeys, print maps for people, link people to maps more easily (like it or not its harder to use on your mobile).
Which Web 2.0 definition are they using here, the share-trader's one or the technologist's one?
If it's the first, then it all goes around new business models that (in a not yet fully explained way) explore the networking and first mover advantage effects of online social networking sites to make money.
Now, beyond the fact that mobile phones already support two of the most popular tools for social networks (voice calls and SMS), exactly which new social network features can the online social network sites comunity bring to the mobile phone world that either have already been tried and failed miserable (think picture exchange - MMS) or would not work properly due to the current limitiations of the technology and/or the pricing models for mobile phone usage (think YouTube-mobile)?
From the top of my head, the few uses that i can think of which might be successful are things like allowing the user to navigate his online network of contacts also from his mobile (think a LinkedIn mobile user interface). That might help with the stickiness of the service but might be difficult to moneytise.
If we're going about the technology definition of Web 2.0 that all goes about providing in a browser a user intereface that feels and reacts as one done in a thick client application (basically fast responding and updating what's displayed only where it needs to be updated - thus without a full repaint). That's actually the whole point of AJAX (which is the bastardized mix of technologies people had to came up with in order to make the above mentioned happen under today's standard browser implementations).
This has no application to mobile phones whatsover since neither WML browsers (for WAP) nor miny web-browsers support the necessary standards to allow using of AJAX like techniques.
Quoth the poster:
Because it's more fun than actually working.
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
"Frankly, I wonder why anyone would even want to use them while sitting at a desk."
Ehmm...nice display, maybe?
Like the added functions available on a desktop?
Have no use for a mobile phone, but still have a use for Google Maps?
Maybe I only feel the need to be connected when I want to be connected?
Don't really give a rat's ass about your opinions?
Sit down, and STFU. The world does not revolve around you. If more people had more influence, then maybe you would see your utopia realised, but apparently we do not all like your brand of koolaid.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
the BIG picture.
I'm using my Nokia N93 with Flickr upload (http://www.flickr.com/nokia), reading RSS feeds using Widsets (www.widsets.com - widgets for mobile), using their great browser to even download videos from video.google.com and for example Google has a great Google Earth SW downloadable from www.google.com/gmm. And I'm sure there are plenty of others - they just lack a good community to write about.
Just get rid of the mod points and let's get on with it already.
no comment
Well maybe one of these will suit...
or one of these
// The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
+1 Insightful.
This is pretty good - google maps, interfaced in j2me -
http://www.mgmaps.com/
How out of touch you people are- the one technology that is making serious progress when it comes to mobile devices and you fail to mention it - Flash.
You can whine at how it doesn't work on linux (yawn) and persevere with the larger than average pile of shit that Ajax and Web 2.0 is. if you really want to.
In the meantime...Flash will continue to secure another important area, just like it has with educational software, online video and games, high-end websites...the list goes on.
Because of the bundle of apps that make up Ajax, it is dammed near impossible to get it working properly from one browser to the next FFS, never mind from one platform to another LOL!!!!
http://slashdot.org/palm
Works better for Blackberry (but not best).
Slashdot doesn't work on mobile phones either. On my normally web-capable Treo-650, Slashdot comes across as one long, vertical, unreadable string of text in the middle of the screen. Even when I turn off images I can not read slashdot. This is new Slashdot only, old Slashdot worked fine. Wonder what the Slashdot admins are trying to say by saying that Web 2.0 doesn't work doesn't work on mobile phones? The Treo 650 brower I have is called Blazer v4.0 . I can ~jimmy~ the loading by stopping the xfer after about 100k, then it's nearly readable.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
Try the award winning Whereis mobile.
Well, if you're in Australia anyway.
Nice timing.
I've been using Mapquest since it came out. It's really pretty good. I tried it a few days ago and it's been web 2.0'ized and no longer works on my W98 box.
Stop laughing, all I want windows to do is launch Opera and SSH and nothing more, and on a dial up line out here in the (dialup only) countryside it makes more sense than XP that can't update itself fast enough before getting trashed.
Mapquest will no longer show me a map as their Web 2.0 nonsense doesn't work in the latest Opera (it should) or last weeks IE. Thanks guys.
Other annoyances: goons that insist a "go" or "submit" button be a graphic. I just wasted some drustrating minutes doing the stupid annual address verification thing for some clients domains. I sit there waiting for the graphic for the "go" button to show up. Come on baby, you can do it, any day now, nice ads, uh huh, yeah come on OH there it is! Click.
Twits.
I swear the web is a lot less usable than it was 5 years aho. Everybody wants to be as slick as Google which is fine, but don't break your app in trying (and failing) to achive that.
In 1983 I mentioned to our European head of marketing I'd just improved the floppy formatting program; we worked for a computer manufacturor.
"How?" says he.
"I took out the verification step".
"You fucking moron. People don't care how fast, people care it actually WORKED".
Oh, good point.
This is a point needs to be written on a cluebat and hammered home to all those Dilberteque managers throught the kingdom. Pretty is nice, but working is better. At least make it a frigging option.
But don't do it like google - you can selete "plain html" (instead of web 2.0) in gmail, which works, but try to manage any options and you're told "this doesn't work in plain html". Hello?
The problem as I see it is the developers and their bosses are technodweebs but those pesky things out there we call "users" have decepid crifty old technology. But they are our customers. They in a large part, occupy the part of the ecosystem that have direct control over our paychecks. And not only are they dumb as a bag of hammers, but they have computers salvaged from the Spanish American war. That's why I like to assume their technology when developing stuff, just as I liked to used to prefer to develop from a floppy way back when before hard drives were ubiquitous: I wanna be able to count disk accesses and I want it to be small.
Know they customer. Know (exactly!) what your program is doing.
Mapquest fails this test.
Need Mercedes parts ?
So now we're imitating real applications in a scripting language that was intended to serve as glue for the real language.
Actually, what is known as "JavaScript" was developed at Netscape (in the pre-AOL purchase days) and the language has nothing to do with Java, and the name to "JavaScript" was a late change (and one that has caused a lot of partly-intentional confusion). It's not glue for Java, it's actually an implimentation of ECMAScript - as is the very similar ActionScript (used by Flash) or JScript (used by IE - as IE doesn't technically support 'JavaScript' but instead has it's own implimentation of ECMAScript, which very similar to and largely compatible with JavaScript).
Boy I would like to get my hands on the PHB at Netscape that decided to name it from LiveScript to JavaScript.
As scripting language, it's actually a better choice for most lightweight applications in a number of ways IMO, not least because from a user perspective it's more convinent in many causes, though in the case of software someone is likely to use often - like Google Maps - a downloadable Java application would definately be preferable.
There are very few sites that really make great use of JavaScript, which I think is a shame as it's really easy to learn and use. It's amazing what you can do with it, though typically it's used in gimmicky ways or for relatively mundane form validation.
people use 'web 2.0' without quotes. Or use it in a paragraph without including the following: 'stupid','buzz term', or 'nonsense phrase';
Most people have no idea what they are doing, and are silently panicking on the inside.
Anyone else seen widsets. Kind of like Yahoo widgets/Konfabulator/Dashboard for your mobile. Works great on my E61, but mainly when using a WiFi link.
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
Sessions instead of cookies, no javascript, small page size... DUH! We'll have to beat our clients over the head with a stick for about two more years before they catch on...
Huh ... I guess that must be only on the CDMA phone models; I don't think that any of the Razr GSM models have 3G capability. At least I'm pretty sure mine doesn't; perhaps there are newer models of ones that do.
Frankly the thought of switching back to CDMA just makes me want to vomit; I crawled out of the Verizon dungeon into the light which is GSM ("wait...you mean I can switch providers and not buy a new phone? Hallelujah!"), and I am never going back there.
If there's a GSM Razr that does high-speed data, I might have to start saving my pennies for an upgrade.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."