Yahoo's Project To Disrupt Mobile Publishing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo's Project To Disrupt Mobile Publishing

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 26, 2012 @08:00AM from the giving-you-the-once-over dept.

waderoush writes "Right now, content publishers who want to reach readers through dedicated mobile apps have to hire a separate engineering team to build each app — one for iOS (based on Objective-C), another for Android (Java), a third for Windows Phone (C#), etc. Yahoo's Platform Technology Group is working on an alternative: a set of JavaScript and HTML-based tools that would handle core UI and data-management tasks inside mobile apps for any operating system, moving developers closer to the nirvana of 'write once, run everywhere.' The tools are gradually being open-sourced — starting with Mojito, a framework for running hybrid server/browser module-widgets ('mojits') — and Yahoo is showing off what they can do in the form of Livestand, the news reader app it released for the iPad in November. In his first extensive public interview about Mojito and the larger 'Cocktails' project, Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz, chief architect at Yahoo's Platform Technology Group, explains how the tools work and why the company is sharing them."

120 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ALREADY DONE by Roachgod · 2012-01-26 08:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Take a look at Appcelerator Titanium, or Corona. Or even PhoneGap. Kinda late to the party Yahoo... again.
1. Re:ALREADY DONE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Add MoSync to that list: http://www.mosync.com/
2. Re:ALREADY DONE by Tronster · 2012-01-26 08:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Also add "HaXe / NME":
  http://www.haxenme.org/
3. Re:ALREADY DONE by james_van · 2012-01-26 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Also add Adobe AIR
4. Re:ALREADY DONE by lolcutusofbong · 2012-01-26 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Enzo, the webOS framework that supposedly works cross-platform, since it's all HTML and JS. Oh, and it's open source now.
5. Re:ALREADY DONE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  I thought Air was dead.
6. Re:ALREADY DONE by slackergod · 2012-01-26 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  A developer enters a market and wonders aloud "There are 12 conflict libraries, which one should I target?"
  His friend replies: "You know, we should write a single library to abstract away all those differences, so everyone can just target 1 library!"
  "That's a great idea!" the developer exclaims.
  Now there are 13 conflicting libraries.
7. Re:ALREADY DONE by hairyfeet · 2012-01-26 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but is this BAD thing, I think not. Having more tools and choices is a good thing IMHO as competition makes for better tools all around. Maybe their setup will produce cleaner code, maybe it will be more noob friendly, maybe they'll make it butt simple to share your content with the ever growing Yahoo portal, who knows but i think it'll be nice to try once its done. After all the worse that will happen is it'll bomb then as you pointed out we still have more choices.
  And now OT but since we are talking about Yahoo just a little something i noticed here at the shop. You know how we all HATE the damned Yahoo Portal, how we think its a cluttered mess? Well it looks like we geeks are in the minority on that one as damned near every box coming through my shop now has that damned thing set as the home page. Talking to my customers basically what Yahoo has done, which i'd say is pretty damned smart, is to replace the morning paper with their home page. Because talking to my customers that is how they treat Yahoo, they sit in front of their PC while they doctor their coffee and "read the Yahoo". they check their mail, read the news, check the sports scores, all the things they used to do with the morning paper they use Yahoo now.
  So who knows, maybe they are on to something, because if they can make it easy to not only share your content with the various mobile phones but also easily get it on the Yahoo Portal so people can read your stuff with their "morning yahoo' I could see it finding an audeience, after all that's a lot of home users sitting in front of that thing every morning.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:ALREADY DONE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  You can also add Enyo to the list: http://enyojs.com/
"Ahem" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:03 · Score: 1

"...a third for Windows Phone (C#)..."
BlackBerry market share still dwarfs Windows Phone. What is with the tech world's hate of BlackBerry?
1. Re:"Ahem" by MetalliQaZ · 2012-01-26 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  It might have something to do with their lackluster efforts to keep pace as Apple and Google speed off into the future. Microsoft's effort to catch up makes BlackBerry look old-and-busted.
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
2. Re:"Ahem" by Hentes · 2012-01-26 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't it support JME making this a non-issue?
3. Re:"Ahem" by Pieroxy · 2012-01-26 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the thing is based on JS, CSS and HTML, I think the answer is pretty obvious: BB browser sucks ass so terribly they'd have to write one from scratch (or to port Webkit)
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
4. Re:"Ahem" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Blackberry, aka "My Crackberry" has garnered negative associations as a device that takes parents away from their families...much like the pager of old. Blackberry has, despite attempts to the contrary, been branded as a "Business phone". It's not fun, it's not hip, it is a phone for business-people. RIMM's Canadian teams do not have a firm grasp on product identification, branding, and marketing to tech people (or anyone really). There are steps RIMM could make, but much like Border's Books, their efforts will come much too late.
5. Re:"Ahem" by rsilvergun · 2012-01-26 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  a) Blackberry only begrudgingly gives away development tools, and doesn't invest much in community support. (Android reason)
  
  b) Blackberry doesn't give me access to a userbase flush with cash and with little or no inhibitions about spending it. It's mostly business' and they're tight wads (iPhone Reason).
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't get it. by mcgrew · 2012-01-26 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Right now, content publishers who want to reach readers through dedicated mobile apps have to hire a separate engineering team to build each app
Why a dedicated mobile app? What's wrong with HTML? We are talking about books, right? Not Quake or Angry Birds or even a radio station; plain old text. WTF?

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:I don't get it. by Anrego · 2012-01-26 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hard to sell a subscription to a site.
  Easy to sell an app.
  This is one of my big gripes with the whole "app" thing. A lot of stuff could just as easily be a website, but is being done as an app for the purpose of generating revenue.
  (That's not to say that a lot of apps out there make sense and use features which would be impractical or clumsy as a web page)
2. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  HTML isn't shiny enough and doesn't allow vendor lock-in.
3. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:21 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  "Trollin', Trollin', Trollin',
  perl scripts a' pollin',
  keep on slashdot trollin',
  Portman!
  Mae Ling Mak and First Post,
  So I can now boast,
  Wishin' my gal was petrified.
  All the things I'm missin',
  My Karma, baths, and wimmin,
  I don't care, or else I'd cry!
  CHORUS
  Click 'em on, post 'em up
  Post 'em up, click 'em on
  Click 'em on, post 'em up
  Portman!
  Click 'em on, post 'em up
  Post 'em up, click 'em on
  Click 'em on, post 'em up
  Portman!
  Keep movin', movin', movin',
  Though they're disapprovin',
  Keep them fingers movin,
  Portman!
  Don't try to understand 'em,
  Just post and reprimand 'em,
  Soon we'll be trollin' far and wide!
  My porn's stimulatin'
  My right hand will be achin'
  I don't care or else I'd cry!
  Portman!
  Portman!!!
4. Re:I don't get it. by Anrego · 2012-01-26 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Hah.. ok, that one is actually pretty funny...
5. Re:I don't get it. by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why a dedicated mobile app? What's wrong with HTML?
  
  Damn, you couldn't even make it past the first sentence of the summary? That's impressive even for Slashdot.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
6. Re:I don't get it. by Anrego · 2012-01-26 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  In his defense, it is a painfully long and drawn out sentence ..
7. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  From the developer side, the 'app' seems like a good way to finance mobile-friendly websites, which otherwise effectively require a complete site redesign.
8. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · 2012-01-26 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  <HTML>
  <body>
  Anybody who can't write HTML and javascript has no right to be attempting to write applications. I read the summary, the question still stands; you need no application for <b> TEXT.</b> We're talking about TEXT here. TEXT. Why an app, framework, or any other such nonsense?
  </body></html>
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
9. Re:I don't get it. by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about TEXT here. TEXT.
  Where does the summary say that?
  For that matter, where does it talk about books?
  In the case of mobile phones, "content publishing" means a variety of things, and it typically must include a UI.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
10. Re:I don't get it. by Anomalyst · 2012-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have web access on my phone. I "pay as you go" on boost for about $7/month for talk & text assuming I don't burn thru a $20/90day minutes card in the period. Next month I plan to pop $450 to move to the Galaxy Nexus on T-mobile for $100/125min/year, still no internet. Yes, between work/home I am WiFi accessible 90% time, but off-net when mobile. Which makes me prefer a standalone app instead of a website for utilities.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
11. Re:I don't get it. by billcopc · 2012-01-26 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  HTML isn't trendy enough with the non-techies. No, seriously, people are too dumb to bookmark a page, but they'll happily install a browser-based app that basically accomplishes the same as a handful of bookmarks.
  As a guy who writes apps for hire, a lot of the stuff I do is essentially packaged HTML, occasionally with small native features added, but nothing groundbreaking. Once in a while, I'll take a bunch of complex pages and recreate them with native UI widgets, as mobile browsers tend to be a bit laggy with DOM manipulation or Javascript-heavy pages. I guess it's kind of like what business app development was 10-15 years ago: skinning MS Access. One guy wanted a database that catalogs sales data, the next guy wants to store supplier data. You change a few labels around and POOF! You sell the same bullshit all over again for zillions of dollars.
  The great majority of non-gaming apps can be recreated with HTML. Things like jqTouch and Sencha basically accomplish the same thing. They just don't earn you brownie points with the hipster crowd.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
12. Re:I don't get it. by tepples · 2012-01-26 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which makes me prefer a standalone app instead of a website for utilities.
  Ideally a web application SHOULD work offline using the Application Cache and Web Storage components of the HTML5 stack. But some publishers are under the impression that offline access is a premium feature.
13. Re:I don't get it. by Anomalyst · 2012-01-26 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting point, I will have to make sure I accommodate that on any Android app I develop.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
14. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  > (That's not to say that a lot of apps out there make sense and use features which would be impractical or clumsy as a web page)
  (That's not to *deny* that a lot of apps out there make sense and use features which would be impractical or clumsy as a web page)
  Fixed. Have a nice day.
15. Re:I don't get it. by tepples · 2012-01-26 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Next month I plan to pop $450 to move to the Galaxy Nexus on T-mobile for $100/125min/year, still no internet.
  If you're comfortable with no Internet, then why not just carry a Galaxy Player or Archos 43 (Android PDA) and a separate pay-as-you-go dumbphone? That way your use of apps on the PDA won't drain the battery and leave the phone unable to make an urgent call.
16. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have web access on my phone. I "pay as you go" on boost for about $7/month for talk & text assuming I don't burn thru a $20/90day minutes card in the period.
  You're paying for minutes? I'm on boost pay as you go and pay a flat $45 for unlimited text, talk, long distance, email, sms, internet, roaming, and probably a few other things. It was $50 to start, there's a program a kind fellow at slashdot clued me in to that after you sign up, every six times you pay on time it goes down five bucks.
  I paid $100 for the phone, a Motorola. Can't remember the model, it isn't printed on the phone, but it resembles a foldable blackberry. They have an Android phone, but you can't use it with pay as you go.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
17. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  "We're talking about TEXT here. TEXT."
  Where does the summary say that?
  For that matter, where does it talk about books?
  
  In the very first sentence. "Right now, content publishers who want to reach readers through dedicated mobile apps..." you don't read movies, games, or radios. If you're reading, it's text.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
18. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know much about the Android's internals except that it's based on Linux, but I've never seen a PC web browser that you couldn't work offline with.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
19. Re:I don't get it. by Anomalyst · 2012-01-27 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  They have an Android phone, but you can't use it with pay as you go.
  Actually I have a Moto I1 (Android v1.6, Motos most recent ver for it) on my PAYG. There is a world of difference between $7.month ($20/90 days) and $45.. While the T-Mo is a tad more expensive ($8.50/month = 1250min/$100/12 months) its a far cry from your $45. As noted I am in WiFi Access Point reach most of the day for internet and do not see a need to pay exorbitant amounts to any carrier for internet access that I already have. Internet while I am out and about is not that valuable.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
20. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  I think PCM2's point is publishers need to provide consumers of their content slightly more than a simple HTML file. Site navigation, analytics, different layouts for different screen dimensions, etc, etc... This all requires slightly more plumbing than a simple HTML file can provide.
Again? by GreyLurk · 2012-01-26 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

If only there weren't a half dozen other companies like Xamarin, Appcelerator and PhoneGap already doing the same thing, this might be impressive.
1. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's all irrelevant anyways. In 2 or 3 years, most "apps" will be written in HTML5. There are very few apps that actually need to run on client hardware, especially considering that most client hardware is low capability.
2. Re:Again? by Roceh · 2012-01-26 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem with all of these cross platform frameworks, they work great if your writing a game or a very simple app that consists of a single screen. However as soon as you go multiple screen you find that the UI metaphors each OS has fight each other, namely Android use of a hardware back button and it use of a hidden menu, these just don't gel with iOS way of doing things. You end up having to write two apps within one app anyway, and in javascript...
3. Re:Again? by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  It's all irrelevant anyways. In 2 or 3 years, most "apps" will be written in HTML5. There are very few apps that actually need to run on client hardware, especially considering that most client hardware is low capability.
  Depends what you mean. If you're talking about content publishing, then voila -- TFA is describing some new HTML5-based tools for content publishing. I agree that we'll see a lot more HTML-based apps in future (even if we don't realize that's what we're looking at), but the idea here is that Yahoo wants to be one of the companies that makes that happen.
  Content publishing doesn't represent the full breadth of mobile apps, however. How do you use HTML5 to access the phone's camera, webcam, GPS, accelerometer, or other sensors? How do you write an HTML game that takes advantage of a variety of different input mechanisms, depending on hardware? Can HTML5 gauge your battery level, or choose which content to download based on whether you're connected via WiFi or a mobile data network? There are lots of things that are easier to code using a native API.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
4. Re:Again? by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 09:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You end up having to write two apps within one app anyway, and in javascript...
  Then again, isn't this kind of like the browser compatibility problems that jQuery aims to solve? Sure, the user has to download some code that won't be used, but the upshot is that the same code will display and function in a useful way on browsers all the way back to IE6.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
5. Re:Again? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-26 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  So far as I know, what Xamarin provides doesn't even attempt to tackle this problem - they simply give you native APIs for UI wrapped for consuption from C#, and it's up to you to implement UI separately on different platforms (but in the same language, and working on top of the same data model), or make a universal UI layer on top of that.
6. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  No. jQuery wraps the language APIs to make elements work. The parent was pointing out that the actual UI operates differently. You can't really abstract that part out as an app - you need to make two different UIs.
7. Re:Again? by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  No. jQuery wraps the language APIs to make elements work. The parent was pointing out that the actual UI operates differently. You can't really abstract that part out as an app - you need to make two different UIs.
  Because one has a button and the other doesn't? I hardly think so.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
8. Re:Again? by thegarbz · 2012-01-26 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bit harder still on the phones as it's not only basic navigation and themes that are different. It's the entire way of working. iOS prefers drill down / icons, Android prefers tabs, Windows phone has .... dunno.
  But even if you have a cross platform app you still won't have an app that meets the design guidelines of the respective platform.
Isn't that Java? by sys_mast · 2012-01-26 08:07 · Score: 2

How many of these 'apps' really need dedicated apps when some good old fashond HTML 5 would work. Wasn't google voice originaly HTML 5 before Apple approved a native app? Didn't it work fairly well?
I guess I'm sick of all these websites that want an app installed, to use the website. Just write the HTML so it detects the device and adjusts the page as needed.
That said. I admit a write once run anywhere, for apps that really do need and app, would be cool. Wait, isn't that Java????

--
Those who can, do.
1. Re:Isn't that Java? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  You need a JVM running.
  And maybe you cant afford to have a JVM, or no JVM is available for your platform.
  And you may also be looking for something half performant.
2. Re:Isn't that Java? by DutchUncle · 2012-01-26 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  And many years ago, wasn't that Basic?
3. Re:Isn't that Java? by sys_mast · 2012-01-26 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, Java:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_once,_run_anywhere
  
  --
  Those who can, do.
4. Re:Isn't that Java? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  "Write once, debug everywhere" is only for systems running a JVM with the standard libraries (not iOS or Android). That and Java is much trickier to use everywhere when Oracle intends to sock everyone with major license fees or lawsuits.
  We've learned now it must be an open, patent & license free environment to be usable everywhere. That means HTML5. HTML5 is not exactly old-fashioned as you'd be hard-pressed to find even a few of its features in use on the internet let-alone available on the current mobile phone browsers (though Android 4 has it).
5. Re:Isn't that Java? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  When you can snatch the mainframe from my hand, grasshopper . . ..
  BASIC was promulgated as being consistent across implementations a *long* time before Java. Of course, so were Fortran and COBOL, but BASIC was the first interactive one.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_programming_language
Bought fake Insluin, hope someone has some info on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:08 · Score: 0

There was a post last month before thanksgiving on the So-Cal Craigslist with an elderly gentleman selling R type insulin for cash or btc. The last part caught me eye and from out talks, its sounded like he just had a recurring RX and was letting the stuff go for cheap aslong as you payed him the cost and a little bit for his time.
Well last night I went to refil my insulin pump, and woke up nearly dead today. It was just water, or saline, or who knows.
Point of this post is to see if anyone else saw that post and kept the info, and to warn off people in the LAX area buying insluin online.
Yahoo has to share by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:09 · Score: 0

Yahoo has to share and pray the community will help them. Anybody who has used Yahoo's site lately would agree with that. I will say one thing positive about Yahoo's management. They knew better than to send their crap coders to Flickr. It looks like they've actually managed to acquire something and not ruin it. Google should take that (and only that) as a lesson.
1. Re:Yahoo has to share by icebike · 2012-01-26 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I would take this posting seriously had Yahoo not been mentioned.
  But as soon as that word slipped out, you automatically know this is going no where. They barely make enough to keep the lights on, and their chance of pulling something like this together is slim to none.
  Google probably is not the right place either. You need someone big enough but not aligned with any of the platform providers.
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Apple iOS forbid these types of code execution development platforms? They used to, but maybe that has been relaxed.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:Yahoo has to share by tepples · 2012-01-26 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  but doesn't Apple iOS forbid these types of code execution development platforms?
  Apple tried requiring all apps to be written in C++ or Objective-C for a few months but abandoned that rule after six months when it discovered that developers of e.g. Lua games were defecting, perhaps to Android.
3. Re:Yahoo has to share by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yahoo might actually be the perfect company to pull this off. There aren't many companies big enough and technical enough to build and support this sort of thing. Yahoo is one of the few of those that wouldn't mind going against the big platform providers.
4. Re:Yahoo has to share by icebike · 2012-01-27 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yahoo is far from technical enough.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:Yahoo has to share by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yahoo is far from technical enough.
  Not sure if you actually believe that or if there's some sort of "sour grape" thing going on. I used to work there and can tell you their technical chops have never been a problem (even with the brain drain that's been going on, they still have a ton of top-tier engineering talent). The problem has always been focus. If they can focus on this for an extended amount of time then it could be interesting.
6. Re:Yahoo has to share by icebike · 2012-01-27 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Tech chops for web perhaps, (although I've seen nothing revolutionary from them for a long time).
  Tech chops for multiple mobile platforms, not so much. Late to the game with lame apps, and little ability to follow thru with any of them.
  http://www.androidcentral.com/yahoo-lays-some-their-mobile-apps-rest
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Those poor, poor software companies. by scottbomb · 2012-01-26 08:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Having to write for multiple platforms... the humanity!
Back in the 80s, they wrote for Commodore, Atari, Apple, Tandy, IBM, CP/M, a handful of others.
Maybe they got spoiled by the 90s, where MS Windows pretty much ruled all computing platforms.
1. Re:Those poor, poor software companies. by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-26 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yea... for a billion-dollar software conglomerate, writing different code for different platforms is no big deal, since they have the resources to do so.
  
  For the indie guys like me, who write apps now and again to supplement the pittance we receive from our corporate day jobs (and are lucky to know even one programming language, let alone three), it's a real pain in the ass.
  
  But then, I guess that's the definition of YMMV.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Those poor, poor software companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you only know one programming language, it should be no surprise, that you are earning only a pittance as a programmer. Comfortable familiarity with three (an interpreter and a compiling among them) is a bare-bones minimum...
3. Re:Those poor, poor software companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he is earning a pittance doing something other than programming?
4. Re:Those poor, poor software companies. by drinkypoo · 2012-01-26 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  The average program of today does more before you even start actually using it than most of those programs did all day, when we were talking with machines with 64kB of RAM.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Those poor, poor software companies. by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-27 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone on /. is a coder by trade, you know. Some of us are self-taught hobbyists who work in other fields, but enjoy writing apps, building robotic overlords, et. al. in our spare time.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Slashdot is dead by imboboage0 · 2012-01-26 08:26 · Score: 1

If you believed your message, you'd have the balls not to post AC.

--
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
Silly title. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:28 · Score: 0

More like Yahoo's Attempt To Streamline Mobile Publishing
Why exactly? by Hentes · 2012-01-26 08:57 · Score: 2

"Right now, content publishers who want to reach readers through dedicated mobile apps have to hire a separate engineering team to build each app — one for iOS (based on Objective-C), another for Android (Java), a third for Windows Phone (C#), etc. Yahoo's Platform Technology Group is working on an alternative: a set of JavaScript and HTML-based tools that would handle core UI and data-management tasks inside mobile apps for any operating system, moving developers closer to the nirvana of 'write once, run everywhere.'

Like, you know, the webpage they already have?
Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:03 · Score: 0

So they're recreating the browser. Except, they're using their own standards other than HTML and HTTP. And the thing has a hardcoded home page.
BRILLANT!
Cross Platforn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:07 · Score: 0

YA PhoneGap is now an opensource Apache project. It can even handle the Android back button correctly. I use PhoneGap plus a JavaScript frame work call joapp http://joapp.com./ My IOS applicaiton is currently under review by apple.
not cross platform (yet) by Mike_K · 2012-01-26 09:12 · Score: 3

Yahoo's Platform Technology Group is working on an alternative: a set of JavaScript and HTML-based tools that would handle core UI and data-management tasks inside mobile apps for any operating system (...) Yahoo is showing off what they can do in the form of Livestand, the news reader app it released for the iPad in November.
Seriously? This is about a cross platform framework that so far has produced a single application that runs on only one platform?
A little premature, don't you think?
Michal
What a moronic post title! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:17 · Score: 0

Disrupt means to prevent from working properly. Now why would a Yahoo project want to break mobile publishing is beyond comprehension.
1. Re:What a moronic post title! by mrquagmire · 2012-01-26 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because 'disrupt' is the hip new buzzword. And we all know that buzzwords make the things they're describing much better.
  
  --
  giggity
Simple solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1

Just write one App for iOS and don't bother writing for the anything else. Problem solved.
1. Re:Simple solution. by tepples · 2012-01-26 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck selling a $200 app now that you have to bundle an iPod touch with each copy that you sell to users of phones that run Android, BlackBerry, Java ME, Symbian, Windows Phone 7, or something else.
2. Re:Simple solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  No you only sell to iOS user and ignore all the rest they aren't worth the time and effort.
Re:Slashdot is dead by mcgrew · 2012-01-26 09:44 · Score: 1

Your troll is offtopic, boy. Now go away.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Yet Another Platform by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:57 · Score: 0

This only represents *YET ANOTHER* platform to support, until some distant, highly unlikely time when Yahoo! supplants iPhone, Android, Windows, and Blackberry in installed customer base and I can afford to ignore those platforms.
In the meantime, I think it is safe to ignore Yahoo!'s
Enyo! by gregthebunny · 2012-01-26 10:20 · Score: 1

Enyo was just released as open source, and is practically the same framework. It will even run on desktop browsers!
http://enyojs.com/
1. Re:Enyo! by gregthebunny · 2012-01-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  There's also PhoneGap.
  http://phonegap.com/
Mindshare by rsilvergun · 2012-01-26 11:03 · Score: 1

A web site is just a bookmark quickly forgotten. An app is an icon on the front page of their phone.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Mindshare by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds kinda sleazy to me.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Translation by hand introduces mistakes by tepples · 2012-01-26 11:59 · Score: 1

It's not that I know only one programming language. I am fairly proficient in at least C, Python, PHP, JavaScript, and even 6502 assembly language. It's just that translating a program from one language to another by hand introduces mistakes and has to be redone by hand every time the "master" version of the program changes.
1. Re:Translation by hand introduces mistakes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Short bus tepples, everybody!
Disrupt the business models of the incumbents by tepples · 2012-01-26 12:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps "disrupt" is shorthand for "disrupt the business models of the incumbent gatekeepers".
Dogfood it, bitches by larry+bagina · 2012-01-26 12:20 · Score: 1

Ok, first off, I don't want to hear about disruption or curating, or whatever fucking words the pack-minded journalists have a hard-on over.
Second ... If you've used google's sites on your iPhone or Android, you know that they have very nice mobile websites. I tried using yahoo finance on my iPhone a couple days ago and they didn't bother giving custom layout for mobile devices. If I was head nigger in charge at yahoo, the first step would be optimizing all the web sites to work great on mobile devices. Step two would be beefing up and pushing the web APIs to attract developer mindshare.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
1. Re:Dogfood it, bitches by drinkypoo · 2012-01-26 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, first off, I don't want to hear about disruption or curating, or whatever fucking words the pack-minded journalists have a hard-on over.
  The rest of your comment aside, this is what I came here to say. When I read "disrupt" I thought Yahoo! had gone rouge and was planning a DDoS. I'm not homophobic or anything but I mean it in the junior high school sense when I say gay it down a little*, Slashdot.
  * I want the rainbow back as well as the word gay, thanks.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apps == Walled Gardens again. by Rossman · 2012-01-26 14:30 · Score: 1

The move to apps is, I think, a much larger issue. It's forcing us back into walled gardens where Apple, Google, MS etc are the gatekeepers and control (and get a cut out of) everything.
Meanwhile most everything can be done in a browser nowadays, we should just continue on with what we were doing, building web apps.
Ugh, I feel like we are regressing back to the Prodigy/Compuserve/AOL days.
1. Re:Apps == Walled Gardens again. by mcgrew · 2012-01-27 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Talk about lock-in, I was on Compuserve in 1982 or 3. Getting off the damned thing was nerly impossible. Emailed them and snail mailed them telling them to close the account and they just kept sending the bills. Of course, after I told them to cancel I never paid, but they kept sending them. Even turned me over to a credit agency! I hope whoever was in charge of them is in prison.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Are any of these actually good? by MikeTheGreat · 2012-01-26 17:42 · Score: 1

(This is not intended as a troll - my apologies in advance if it's read that way)
The beautiful thing about OSS is that anyone, anywhere can contribute. Just throw together a project, put it on the web, give it the right license, and BAM! You've contributed an open source project. Producing a high-quality, production-ready OSS project, on the other hand, takes some doing.
I ask just because I looked at a couple of these frameworks and got the impression that they have potential, but they're 'not there yet'
Maybe the real news here is that big, established company has decided to devote resources to really doing this right?
It violates the developer agreement by tlambert · 2012-01-26 21:47 · Score: 1

It violates the developer agreement.
The developer agreement allows interpreters that don't download content from the web (5 BASIC interpreters in the App store, but you have to type in the programs yourself to use them). It also allows interpreted downloaded content in JavaScript -- in a UIWebview: meaning in Safari,
From my reading of things, they are implementing their own JavaScript interpreter ("chromeless") which is not a UIWebview, and therefore in violation of the developers agreement.
Not that I agree that this should be the case, mind you, but Apple doesn't trust sandboxing they didn't write.
-- Terry
Or use LiveCode from RunRev by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 01:56 · Score: 0

Livecode is cross platform - Mac/Win/Linux/IOS/Android (and others) with one codebase and development tool on Win/Mac/Linux.
I've been using it for a couple of months and it's great.
And the language is more like English than code!
http://runrev.com/
Full Disclosure - I Don't work for them.
Re:GNAA represent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 02:20 · Score: 0

You've got a few broken links there, update your spam already.