Slashdot Mirror
Apple Handcuffs Web Apps On iPhone Home Screen
SF Polack writes "On Apple's iOS 4.3, HTML5 and JavaScript apps are running significantly slower when they're run from the iPhone or iPad home screen rather than Safari, and the OS is hindering the performance of these apps in other ways. The end result is that it's harder for web apps to compete with native iOS app sold through the App Store, where Apple takes a 30 per cent of sales."
Try holding it differently.
Anybody want my mod points?
....and handle seasonal time changes?
Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.
This bug only occurs when you launch a web app that contains a meta tag of name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"
If your 'web app' is just a shortcut to Safari on your homescreen then you won't see this bug.
Basically this web app meta tag launches the app fullscreen without any Safari chrome. To the user it looks like a separate app rather than it's running in the browser.
The slow behaviour is just using the iOS 4.2 JavaScript engine. It's possible that this is either an oversight or that Apple deliberately kept the old JavaScript engine for web apps in case it broke functionality that the app was depending on.
We'll see in the coming weeks I'm sure.
This has to do with if you go to the page from the home screen (effectively clicking a shortcut that takes you to safari) versus going to safari, then the page. Nothing to do with the available capability.
In both situations, you end up with the same result (page running in safari). When you use the home screen shortcut, you get less performance.
As to backends, if you're phone app requires CPU power to *wait* for calls, you're doing it wrong. (memory I can understand. actively polling a hardware signal? not so much)
I'm sure this is a bug and not by design as the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. Most native app versions of services that also offer webapps are free anyways. Apple gets to eat the distribution overhead for no 30% cut. Just sayin.
Given that Web-based apps are typically free, I'm a bit skeptical about #1. But guess which explanation made the headline?
Sadly, How many people ACTUALLY use their phones to make calls today ? Most people I see use them for playing games and sending out text messages and that's about it.
"Sadly?" What's sad about it? Some us who always hated talking on the phone and would be happy if phones became obsolete (although they won't of course). I also hated faxes, you're not sad about them are you?
Anyway, if the increasingly inaccurate "phone" designation really annoys you, just pretend they're mutated calculators.
You don't see people wipe their ass or feed their pets, but I'm guessing people do those things as well as make phone calls with their phones. Texting/Games are what they do in public/when killing time.
The cause of this has been discovered already; it's a software bug. iOS 4.3 has a new JavaScript engine. Websites launched from the home screen seem to be reverting to and using the old JavaScript engine from iOS 4.2. The article makes it sound like a conspiracy. I'm sure it'll be patched soon; I can think of no obvious reason to do this but give the same apps full speed if bookmarked within the web browser.
It's unclear whether these are accidental bugs or issues consciously introduced by Apple.
So, they have no idea whether or not it's actually malicious, but they've decided to run with the story using an inflammatory headline anyway.
According to Apple developers posting to the web, the speed issue has been discussed in the company's developer support forums, and one developer – the same unnamed developer quoted above – confirms with The Reg that multiple bugs have been filed on the issue.
Developers are using proper channels to report what's most likely a bug and this is most likely a non-story as of the next minor update, but they've still decided to run with it anyway.
Apple isn't degrading the speed of home screen web apps. It's boosting the speed of web apps in the browser. But in the long run, the effect is the same. And if this is a bug, Apple has yet to fix it.
So, in fact, Apple hasn't intentionally hobbled anything, it's just that they haven't sped them up, possibly due to a bug, yet they're still going to run this story.
This developer reiterates that if Apple didn't specifically introduce these problems in iOS, it's aware of them now. And he says that the Mobile Safari team has indicated the issues will not be fixed.
You'd think that such damning evidence would be posted, but it isn't. Complete hearsay, but they've decided to run the story, inflammatory headline and all, regardless.
>Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.
Not anymore if it involves any money exchanged between the user and the app provider. Now Apple is forcing (users of) subscription services like Amazon and Netflix to pay up 30%. ( an extra 43% to the user). It's curtains from June.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html
Free app Readability already got banned for this.
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/
Free Sony e-reader app banned:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_bans_sony_e-reader_app_a.html
This space for rent.
There is an app for that.
They are not phones.
They are high end PDAs that include telephony as a feature, and you can choose to or not to use that feature.
There, does that make you happy? :-)
People like them. They're very powerful and can do a lot and industry leaders have been talking about "convergence" technologies for about 25 years but only now has it become reality.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Some people do use them for work. With VPN + ssh my android phone gets used for work a lot.
This is the opinion(not mine, I know this will be downvoted regardless) of this very interesting and detailed article which I wanted to post.
http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/
This space for rent.
Me? I think it's pretty friggin' cool that in addition to supporting voice (and face-to-face/video conversations) today's portal wallet-sized devices are also able to connect me to the entire world in other ways too. (Not to mention entertaining me from time to time.)
Hahahahaha. Oh wow.
"Stop pretending it is a world-changing piece of technology because it isn't."
How is it (or rather smart phones in general) not? It's at least as world changing as the internet itself.
Being able to access nearly any piece of human knowledge whether I'm standing in line at the grocery store or out camping in the woods is pretty fucking amazing to me.
What? You can't install "web apps" on your home screen. Except for shortcuts that launch Safari
Yes, that's what we're talking about. Shortcuts that launch Safari.
which would run with the newer, faster engine.
Ah... well, you'd certainly think so. Except that the whole point of this article appears to be that that assumption is, in fact, incorrect.
If it's a shortcut on your homescreen then safari will open and the app will run at normal speed using the 4.3 Javascript engine.
If there's a special meta tag it will open full screen like a separate app, this is currently using the old 4.2 Javascript engine.
So basically - webapps with the meta tag will currently run the same speed as they did before the iOS upgrade, whereas web pages can use the new faster Javascript engine.
We'll see as time progresses whether this is intentional or not, but the fact is nothing is being slowed down it's just using a different javascript engine.
They didn't cripple, handcuff, or kneecap anything.
They just didn't UPGRADE the web-app-run Safari to the new Javascript engine.
web-app-run websites will run at the same speed as in 4.2, they just won't run FASTER, as a 'Safari-run' website would.
Still not great, but not what people are calling it out as.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Not using the new JavaScript engine in UIWebView (the component used to render web like content) is a good thing in my eyes. It is pretty hard to debug JavaScript apps in UIWebView, since you don't have things like a DOM inspector or a JavaScript debugger. By keeping the engine the same, they have guaranteed that the existing UIWebView based apps will continue to function after the upgrade to 4.3. Imagine if every app making heavy use of UIWebView had subtle errors after the upgrade... I *would* like to see the faster engine available to UIWebView, but in the mean time, I will take compatibility.
You honestly believe that having a phone and small touch screen computer in one device is at least as world changing as a network that can carry data (mostly unhindered) to a great portion of the world?
But it just isn't putting me into an ecosystem with a situation like that.
A situation like what? The apps still work just as well as they did prior to an update - they just didn't speed UP. Nothing was "lost".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yeah, if by "convergence" you mean 100 fart apps and other pointless diversions. Apple has succeeded marvelously at resurrecting the shareware concept and all it's awful baggage.
It is a toy, plain and simple. An expensive "activity generator" with a telephone attached. Stop pretending it is a world-changing piece of technology because it isn't.
You really should consider getting one.
I think there's an navigation app that will allow you to travel to and return from any destination and ensure that both routes taken are uphill.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
usually I think they are talking to themselves, or me (i hate bluetooth headsets)
I wrote one of these that caches some graphics and the single html page the comprises the app, which is mostly javascript. Using 4.3 it still runs fine offline, so whatever cashing bug exists does not affect everything. Running the app through iphone's Safari might be a little faster. I didn't time it, but the difference, if there is one, is not dramatic.
I see dozens of ignorant comments here claiming that webapps on the home screen are just Safari bookmarks. What makes them real apps is that they can store themselves and the resources they need on the device and work offline.
Why not start patenting words next.
Ironically, they already own the trademark NeXT.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
To a degree, yes. The internet for many people shifted the location of their information from libraries into the home. When I was a kid and I wanted to check a random fact or lookup a recipe or find out just what was the last year of production for the Chevy Corvair, I could find that information out - but I had to go to the library. It was inconvenient, and it was slow. The internet brought that information a step closer. Now, you could access that information at home.
Mobile devices do the same thing taking it yet a step further. Now your data access is no longer restricted by your location - it's with you at all times.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
>The cellular data network will still be important, but in some areas of the world, WiFi saturation may make it less necessary.
Good luck with this. The wireless companies engage in an illegal practice known as "tying" - You buy whatever THEY deem as a "smart" device and you are REQUIRED to buy a data plan. Even if you purchase the device outright, you have to pay hundreds of dollars a year more for data service you may not want or need.
Here's my analogy: You buy a nice new 55" 1080p LED-LCD 3D TV. You've never seen a need for cable before, but your mother-in-law has moved into your spare bedroom and she likes to watch cable. You call the cable company for basic cable. Their first question is "What kind of television do you have?". Strange question, but you answer. Cable- "OK, Sir. You have a screen over 40", so you have to get a HD box. Since it's also a 3D TV, you have to get all the movie channels and sports packages." You-"But I just want basic for my M-I-L to watch the news and normal programming". Cable "Sorry, Sir - that's our policy".
I'm around WIFI all day. I don't have any use for data while I make my commute. I would love to have a new Android gadget phone. Can't get one on Verizon (or any others) without paying $360/yr for data that I WILL NOT HAVE ANY USE FOR. Sure, I could probably find something I'd use it for, but I get along great without it. It's Tying, and it is ILLEGAL. Unfortunately, no one with the deep pockets to fight it cares, they just pay the $360/yr.
Its [sic] a communication device.
Correct.
Its [sic] the same fucking thing that Kirk and Spock used.
Incorrect - Not even close to what Kirk and Spock had, even in TOS. A Star Trek communicator fit it one's hand and could reach a vessel in orbit, even if it wasn't geosynchronous over their head. Signals seemed to bypass most EM interference, and the devices allow nearly instantaneous communication at distances that would otherwise require more time to traverse. Most sat-phones today are bulky with little to no data capability.
That quote is actually misattributed. It was the person writing to Steve Jobs who wrote that, not Jobs.
Here's what the site in question says: "UPDATE: The last line in the email exchange was actually not said by Mr. Jobs; rather it was by “Tom.” We corrected it as soon as we were made aware."
Jobs closed his half of the email exchange with "You may be working from bad data. Not your fault. Stay tuned. We are working on it."
BTW, I'm not in any way condoning Apple's de facto classification of home screen web apps as second class iOS citizens.
> How is it (or rather smart phones in general) not? It's at least as world changing as the internet itself.
> Being able to access nearly any piece of human knowledge whether I'm standing in line at the grocery store or out camping
> in the woods is pretty fucking amazing to me.
Sure, we didn't have that 10 years ago with the PDA rage, right? And you weren't able to do that 30 years ago? Think harder ;-)
When Safari is up front and center, let it have the majority of the CPU time. When a "web app" is on the home screen, let it compete for clock cycles with the rest of the "web apps" on the home screen and the main functions of the home screen (and the phone in general).
Maybe I am not qualified to speak on this topic, because I don't use any "web apps" to speak of on my iPhone 4, as I vastly prefer native apps. I have no web pages pinned to my home screen at all.
And stop bitching about the 30 percent that Apple takes for App Store sales. It's right in line with what Kagi, et. al., take for selling software. I fail to see how it is unfair in the least, as Apple is bringing developers a huge audience, hosting the files, footing the bandwidth, managing the update system, etc. In an ideal world, the standard percentage that a distributor takes would be less, but 30 percent is perfectly average in not only the software distribution world, but in other areas too (e.g., 20th Century Fox generally gets a lot more than 30 percent on the first run of the movies it distributes for other producers--it's more like 50 or 60 percent; maybe it will get down to 30 percent at second-run movie houses and for DVD sales).
:q!
Disregarding the improved UI (almost all people seem to work much quicker with a capacitive touch screen versus a stylus), neither of those devices had a GPS, nor (most importantly) a functional internet connection that is available 99% of the time you are away from home.
Seriously, the "always there" internet connection on these devices pretty much the main driving factor in their popularity - you can't compare them to devices of old that lack that important part. It's like trying to compare automobiles to carriages and dismissing it as "nothing different".
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I did exactly that for a long time. I went through a few semi-smart phones that played mp3's, but none had decent players till my current LG Env Touch (Verizon had some conflict with this phone - When I got it, data was optional, then later it wasn't, then it was again - go figure). I quit carrying 2 devices, and don't really wish to go back. I have a 42 mile commute. I listen to a LOT of audio books. A player that will remember your place in a book if you leave the player app is very important. It's nice to be able to load a 16GB micro SD card with books/music/pictures and be able to manipulate it all without iTunes too.
I've learned to work around the quirks in the LG player, and it's been OK. I'd love to be able to try out other apps without paying Verizon (only provider that works at my house) $1.99/MB/download just to try different apps, much less the purchase price of the app that may not do it. I like to tinker, so an Android seems like the device for me. I like the iPhone, but despise the whole Apple culture thing.
Also, dishonest business practices like forced data contracts gets under my skin and makes me dig my heels in. If *I* get a smart phone, then my wife has to get one (who honestly has no need of one, she's very non-techie). I know my step-son will wheedle her into getting him one eventually too, and a 14 yr old has NO valid reason for one (He needs to show behaviour and grades to justify permission, then have enough incentive to earn the money for it - that hasn't and probably won't happen) All of a sudden, I'm looking at $1080/yr for DATA. Even if I buy the phones for full price. Bullshit on that.
Ummm sure you can. I've got a Fuze and no data plan. Sure it isn't the latest tech, but even when I got the phone, data plans were a "requirement". I activated the account with my old RAZR and moved the sim over.
Of course, on companies like Sprint w/ no SIM, you're pretty much screwed in that regard.
Actually you can - quite easily. All you have to do is go to a carrier and buy the cheapest dumbphone with SIM that you can (AT&T is good for this) and get it on a "no contract length" plan (so.. a dumbphone will probably be about $100 - you'll have to pay that) - get the voice service you want on it with no data plan. Take the SIM out and put it in your android or blackberry phone. Your data services will not work, your voice services will.
I live in Canada and have an unlocked Blackberry Bold 9700 on Rogers with a normal blackberry data/voice/etc. plan for around $60/mo. I travel to the US regularly - many weeks a year. I went to an AT&T store and bought a $129 dumbphone with a $24/mo voice plan, no data, etc. I have that service automatically charged to my credit card each month so I just ignore its existence for the most part. When I travel to the US I pop my Rogers SIM out, pop my AT&T SIM in, and I'm good to go - I'm on a US phone number for making and receiving calls, and I have no data or blackberry service, but whenever I'm around WIFI I can use that for any data apps / web browsing.
Previously I had been paying around $600/yr in roaming costs when in the US. (typically ~$50 per week I was there). I now pay $300/yr for my US phone service and I get more minutes than I'll ever use while there and I use the Blackberry just fine with no data plan. My wife does the same with her Android phone using my SIM when she has to go to the US as well.
So the real story here is "iOS Safari has got lots better in 4.3 and iOS web apps run just like they used to." Doesn't exactly sound like Apple adding handcuffs to me. Sadly that didn't make a good enough headline for The Register and anyway El Reg loves a conspiracy theory.
The fact is that this is almost certainly just a versioning issue with the UIWebView code. When you launch a Web App in iOS what actually happens is that it a launches a dummy app that just consists of a full screen UIWebView pointed at the web page. Other than when Apple releases new full version (e.g. x.0 release) the UIWebView code has typically trailed the code in Safari by at least one point release. This "bug" quite possibly "won't be fixed" as a bug because it will just come out in the wash. If there is ever an iOS 4.4 I'd expect to see it resolved there, otherwise I'll put money on it being fixed in iOS 5.0 come the summer. Apple aren't going to put up with on-going maintenance of diverging WebKit code bases just to make sure that Objective-C applications stay running even faster than JavaScript than they would with Nitro.
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
One man's "fact" is another man's "value for money", since you're not just buying hardware, but I have noticed the trend has shifted form "Macs are overpriced" to "Macs are overpriced for the hardware they have".
I was being facetious with my comments, but all three were accurate at one point: you were stuck at 640x480 resolution in Ubuntu because the settings window was taller than that and there was no way to select or click "ok" to change it. This bug has been fixed.
Android phones were sending text messages to the wrong recipients. This bug has been fixed. Both were "errors on the producer side". The bit about Canonical forcing users to use crippled systems was a little hyperbole, just to balance out all the "Apple is evil and Steve Jobs wants to control everything you do" nonsense.
This iOS bug will be fixed, to enable home-launched apps to use the new javascript engine. (and note carefully that Apple didn't "handcuff" or "cripple" anything, they made these same web apps that they are meant to be "crippling because it threatens their profits" actually FASTER with the new JS engine, but due to the way the home screen is launching these shortcuts (with the old safari JS engine) they are the same speed that they have always been, but now slower than the improved versions in the new Safari. This too will be fixed.
FTR, I run Ubuntu and OS X side by side, but I'm not averse to taking a pop at it for comic effect and to make a point now and again.
Virgin Mobile USA sells two Android phones for $150 and $200 and you don't need any service at all from them. If you want phone/data you can pay $25/mo (not a contract, just month to month) but the phone works fine without that. The first thing I did with mine was hook it up to my WiFi, before I'd even ported my number over from my old phone.
Graham