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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.