Slashdot Mirror
Can Web Standards Make Mobile Apps Obsolete? (arstechnica.com)
nerdyalien writes: There's a litany of problems with apps. There is the platform lock-in and the space the apps take up on the device. Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore, leaving broken or vulnerable versions in use long after they've been allegedly patched. Apps are also a lot of work for developers—it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry. What's the alternative? Well, perhaps the best answer is to go back to the future and do what we do on desktop computers: use the Web and the Web browser.
no
Isn't this what Firefox OS tried to do and everyone said it would never work? Also, haven't people been saying this for long before even that happened?
Personally, I like the idea of something like that, but I'm not sure it will ever win out over the alternative, for a lot of reasons.
Next question.
How many times is this going to be rehashed? Wasn't Java going to accomplish this 15 years ago? The web browser has turned into a VM - a very convoluted, inconsistent, difficult to develop for, hodgepodge mess of a VM. We've got WebGL and Web Audio API and all the HTML5 stuff (local storage, canvas rendering, etc, etc), and still it's a pathetic step-child of a "platform" to develop for compared to pretty much any proper platform. If "write once, run everywhere" is what you want, then sure, go for the lowest common denominator (HTML5 "apps") and you will end up with the end result of the lowest common denominator of performance and platform integration.
Better known as 318230.
"perhaps the best answer is to go back to the future"
Oh you mean going back to thick clients on the desktop like we used to? Yeah I'm for that. Going to the web for everything? That was Jobs first idea for the iPhone and quickly saw the draw backs.
But using an app that does nothing but open a website allows people to skip the part where they have to open their web browser.
It makes everything easier to access.
Besides email and, well, browsing, there's nothing I do on a web browser. I like having local applications.
Steve Jobs, 2007: You can build amazing Javascript Web 2.0 apps for the iPhone! We didn't make a SDK because you don't need one.
Steve Jobs, 2008: Okay here's your SDK
I hate upgrading my apps. I'm entirely willing to suffer security vulnerabilities and lack of new features in order to keep the user interface I'm used to and that works for me. In the case of Google Maps and Chat and almost everything else Google for example, new versions offer totally different functionality that often doesn't work for my use case anymore. I strongly suspect that there's a LOT of users like me...yeah, security vulns suck, but the time investment to keep everything up to date and relearn infrequently used applications is massive. I'd never get anything done.
No language choices, no reliable offline support (which should include installing app from an sd card if needed), no ability to downgrade the app or delay updates until problems are fixed. Plus massive performance, memory and functionality hit due to inflexibility and targeting lowest common denominator.
I only use apps that will work offline as well as online. If your app is online only then stuff it. I'll just use the mobile web page using jquery instead of buying your lame $1.99 browser wrapper.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
With so many standards to choose from, one of them has to work. Or let's make a new standard.
Sorry but apps through browsers totally suck for usability in comparison to local apps.
Apart from anything else there's the whole complete dependency on being connected thing, then there's all the massive extra lag because every interaction and UI update are now doing GETS/POSTS to a remote backend, Then there's all the unnecessary extra data usage and extra battery usage as a consequence which are both very real factors for mobiles.
Browser apps are even a bad idea on desktops. We just "upgraded" to Office365 at work. What a complete fucking laggy mess and giant step backwards in productivity and usability that is, mostly because its obviously implemented as some sort of browser-based app now. I'd bet it just because some clueless moron like you at Microsoft thinks "moar web=== kool"
The benefit that native apps give is consistency. Unless your app goes out of its way to do something weird (and these definitely do exist), it gets consistency for free! The user learns how to use their environment, and this consistency gives them an anchor point for using your app efficiently.
Web apps are the wild west with every site behaving differently in all but the basics, and then sometimes even the basics don't quite work. Even those who try to mimic a native app's look and feel never seem to get it right, leading to frustration as you then expect things to work in a specific way.
Until this can be solved, I don't think web apps are the solution. Even then, web apps tend to use significantly more RAM and CPU, so it's still not going to work where responsiveness has value.
The cream of the crop will still be unique versions of each app for each platform to match the style the best. Whether it's "native" or not is up to the developer, but it might as well be otherwise it's missing out.
The appification of technology has passed and there is no going back. Beyond doubt the best solution to all technical problems is apps. If you're not apping your apps, then you are a stupid luddite. Apps are where it's at. Apps are here to stay. Start apping your apps now, or you'll have failed to pivot to apps in time for your app and your app will be too apping late.
Mark my words.
I don't know about everyone else, but IMHO the web browser is THE WORST platform to code for in existence. It amazes and depresses me how little has changed about client side web programming since IE4. Instead we have created these huge frameworks to try to hide the suck under an enormous pile of middleware. But still we are doing this fundamentally broken thing of shoehorning a language intended to describe formatted text documents (HTML) to instead describe a GUI for an application. This reminds me of IE4 and its web page dialogs.
If we truly are serious about having the web be an application platform then a new markup intended to describe cross platform application GUIs and a standard bytecode for the web is needed. Asm.js and enscripten or PNaCl both could be our new standard bytecode, both have pros and cons that I won't rehash. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of either one. But no one is trying to address the fact that HTML's layout system is designed for documents... Not for GUIs. We really need something like XUL or XAML made in to a web standard. I don't care about the politics of what language/tool we choose as long as its a good one thats open for all. I'm sick of the holy wars over tools and languages. That said JavaScript is garbage just like HTML and CSS for actual development and needs to be replaced with a sane language.
>> Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore,
Dude enough with the unrealistic strawman.
On Android, OSX, Windows and Linux at least, you can set updates to happen completely automatically, or at worst you just have to hit OK to authorize the available update its notifying you about. How is that really a pain?
No
Sonny, when netscape navigator was the bomb, and java and javascript were plugins, every one said the same thing then too. This will replace the file system and the applications. Java promised to run on all architectures. But it actually became write once, crash everywhere.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry
apparently you haven't heard of Qt because it supports all of those platforms.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
in mobile battery life matters. That not only means efficient code, it also means code that plays nice with the OS to properly minimize mobile resources including memory and keeping apps in main memory. The reason apple iphones get away with smaller batteries and smaller memory sizes is that code bloat of java (dalvek).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Fuck apps. Let's bring back web standards.
There's a litany of problems with apps. There is the platform lock-in and the space the apps take up on the device. Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore....
Platform lock-in is a geek obsession. Everyone else just makes their choice and settles in comfortably.
Installing the Win 10 update and an internal SD card freed 32 GB on my HP Stream-8 for apps and data.
Storage simply isn't a problem any more, even at entry level --- and automated updates of both system software and apps are becoming the norm.
I can't say that I am happy to see the decline of the general purpose web browser, but a one-size-fits-all solution has drawbacks of it own.
I have installed exactly 2 apps... The rest are waste of space and time. If you do not have mobile website - my business goes too.
The idea is not very good for a desktop with a reliable internet connection, but it becomes ridiculous if you look at it in terms of mobile systems. An internet connection is not guaranteed. If I am out of signal range with no WiFi the last thing I want is to have a device that can't run my applications. That goes double if I'm lost in the woods and need a compass app or I'm looking to tune my guitar, for example.
Fundamentally,you can achieve the same advantages by just setting the OS such that new updates get automatically pushed to your device.
It is 2016 on Friday. If you are running out of space on your phone you're doing it wrong. Get a friggin device with decent storage and add a large uSD Card. Problem solved.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Desktops don't rely on a web browser for all their apps, or even a significant portion thereof. Do you know how many "apps" (i.e. programs) are on a Linux system, or even a Windows one for that matter. For Linux the count is literally in the thousands. Even if you are using 100 Web Based programs (and who is doing that), you are still looking at an order of magnitude more local applications.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
web browsers should be optimized for displaying text and pictures. HTML and CSS make it easy to do that stuff. General purpose applications should use something else.
There is no need for many existing apps anyhow. So many webpages provide a perfectly functional web interface but then whack a nag (or worse yet a doorslam) over the top because apps are shiny fancy good (apparently).
I can only assume apps give the company easier access to more data about the user.
When my internet connection matches the speed of my sata connection, and is always available with built in hardware, and browsers have native control of every pixel and event on my desktop.. Then webapps might start to make sense.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Dear Slashdot,
This is the second time in a week that I am posting a comment after probably 10 years of never posting comments.
Once again this is not news, this is not interesting, this is not important enough to of wasted the 10 seconds to read the title on the main page.
However, it is important in one aspect. It highlights the ever increasing crap that makes its way to the front page, and is one of the reasons I have been slowly drifting away from /. in general. You used to have good articles, good news, important stuff, things people wanted to read about... now days your filled with total CRAP and clickbait with an extra touch of ADs. This is a far cry from the /. that i used to check multiple multiple times a day. Now your lucky if i stop by twice in a day, if at all.
Looking in to my crystal ball... i for see a future for /. something similar to cnet.com for those of you who remember what it used to be as opposed to the god awful virus ridden bloat ware ad riddled garbage of a site it is now.
So here is me yelling in the wind to no one that will make a difference.
Believe it or not, cellular service isn't as ubiquitous as people think it is. There are still significant areas of the country without adequate cellular coverage. Are you willing to have your "apps" not work because your browser can't connect to the intertubes?
I was going to add "poorly" but your "works like shit" does the job fine.
But no one is trying to address the fact that HTML's layout system is designed for documents... Not for GUIs. We really need something like XUL or XAML made in to a web standard.
I have daydreamed a bit about using Qt's QML as a way of transferring GUI information/design for websites, rather than HTML documents. If you're not familiar, QML is a Javascript-syntax (superset?) markup for declarative programming of GUIs, and Qt5 and KDE's Plasma 5 use it extensively. It's Javascript origins mean most people are already familiar with it, and could potentially repurpose/extend existing javascript engines for it rather than throwing it all out. I haven't done major projects with it, but I am a fan of KDE so I'm pretty convinced its powerful enough for general purpose web apps.
That being said...
That said JavaScript is garbage just like HTML and CSS for actual development and needs to be replaced with a sane language.
Javascript is not a great language so there's slight concern of any language based on javascript. But, maybe part of why javascript sucks so much is that HTML and CSS are not really designed to work together with it. A new language/engine designed to work with it, like Qt QML is, might be fine.
https://xkcd.com/1174/
A lot of "native" apps are already just wrappers for Web content. It really is a pain for developers.
OK, so let's talk about security. If done right, a Web browser could implement the same security scheme (or better) that is now enforced for apps. Desktop browsers have started to do this somewhat, asking you if you want to provide location info, for example. A more comprehensive permissions system could directly port native permissions to Web content.
Everybody wants you to install their app, for no good reason. If you want to stream your local TV station, they want you to install their app, one for each station. An app for CBS, one for NBC, and so on. Every store wants you to install their app so you can see their hours of operation or apply for a job. LinkedIn, which works perfectly well in a browser, wants you to install an app. Same for Facebook. Next, Slashdot will want you to install an app to read their stories on mobile, and you KNOW they will force you to see their ads.
And that leads to probably the biggest advantage of browser-based content: you can use an ad-blocker.
Err... I only use the web browser for navigate I never download Photoshop or Excel for work inside a browser.
Please slashdot, do a sanity check on your posts, this is an ad for Chromebooks. I start to consider to look for a more professional IT news site. Meh.
This article is obviously flame war bait, but consider that practically EVERYONE here is currently reading this on a browser. Despite the bugginess and shortcomings of various browsers, javascript, html5, etc, the modern browser is king for multitasking, and acquiring other chunks of data from various HTTP requests (e.g. having 2390843 browser tabs open at once). With this in mind, I don't think it's absolutely crazy to think that the 'web app' could gain significant traction when compared to native applications. Assuming internet connections will tread toward further ubiquity, it's not hard to see myself continuing to rely on browser-provided frontends for my consumption needs. Furthermore – they're so much more malleable. There are many a frustrated developer who have to wait on Apple's blessings just to make minor updates to their existing native 'apps'
Disclaimer: I develop websites for a living (using the term loosely), and I hate everything and every browser.
You don't know and understand browser caching or do you have a good understanding of the reasons it would not work effectively ?
Ok so now, before I want to use the app in offline mode, I have to go to the webpage first and do something to make sure that it downloads and caches all the code and data that the app will need to run offline which will need some special functionality on the website to do reliably so better hope they support it. Then I need to somehow make sure that the browser keeps this information cached and does not delete it from the cache when I download a different page. Finally I'll then need a special URL which goes to the cache without having the browser wait for an internet timeout.
Exactly how is this better than an app I just download once and click on when I need it? Especially if I have one which exercises the CPU since implementing it s a webpage will kill the performance.
Sigh, this gets trotted out every year, usually by a fvcking web developer who couldn't be bothered to learn anything else.
The reason there are still apps is because they fill a very needed niche. Try write a web app that you can use out in the middle of nowhere without internet access, or worse intermittant or VERY SLOW internet access. Ontop of that the web app has every framework and kludge thrown in to make it look like an app and what you get is a very very frustrated user, who will drop your web offering and go with someone who bothered to write an app.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
I call it the first law of IT: Toys win.
When the PC came out it was a toy. Litterally.
3 decades later its the only computer architecture worth talking about.
Why? Its open and there is no single entity controlling it.
Linux was a toy back then. Now it owns everything in computing that isn't controlled by marketing.
And it secretly owns those rebranded platforms like android, which is Linux in disguise.
LAMP is a toy. A toy everyone can use. Now it runs 70% of the web.
WordPress is a toy. A toy everyone can use and tinker with. It runs 25% of the web.
Technolog wise the web stack is a silly joke. But it just killed a technology dead that was something like 15-20 years ahead and orders of magnitude less shittier: Flash. Why? Proprietary and controlled by Adobe, a company interested in profit, not technology. If Adobe would've FOSSed Flash at the beginning of the touch revolution, it would've stood a chance. Now it's dead.
What's remaining of the web is technology that was hip 20 years ago - you know, that time when XML was better than anything else, because at least it was a standard. ... Until HTML came along that is.
The Web is a toy. But it runs everywhere and my grandma can learn to write for it in 10 minutes. Its a slow-as-hell buggy meta-plattform - but its the only one we've got in a time where fragmentation - especially in the mobile space - is rampant.
My Website from 15 years ago will still render on todays browsers, even on mobile. On screens and platforms we didn't even dream of back then. Try that with a windows or mac app.
The Web is a toy that is laughed out of the room, especially here on slashdot. It's laughed out of the room like the PC was in the early 80ies.But
, as a toy, it's open and everyone can tinker with it. That's why it will win.
So yes, native mobile apps will most probably become a specialty and web-tech-based apps the norm.
Toys win.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Now, like Rip Van Winkle, going to sleep for 25 years, let me know how it worked-out when I wake up!
Most mobile apps... Actually most apps, are a basic CRUD based system (Create Read Update Delete). Apps are really only really needed for the following.
1. Interface Performance Matters: This includes games, graphics edits, sound editing, CAD. This is where the UI will be doing a lot of work to provide a rich experience... Most Apps give you data and sit there awaiting input. Web Standards may be implemented well, however sometimes you just need the low level.
2. Additional User Input/Output. Needing that new device camera, motion detector, special screen that takes different input Or outputting to a specialized device. Web Standards cannot be adapted to handle new technologies.
3. Non-Default security. Sometimes those security warnings will get in the way and those apps can bypass them.
However that is only a small portion of the apps.
Most mobile apps are just a wrapper to a web site, or send XML, JSON to a server and work just like a browser. So with proper web standards implemented and optimized for the devices they are installed on most of your apps can be useless.
Web Standards is the reason why we can function very well with Linux, Macs, iOS, Android... Comparing say 20 years ago (1996) where most applications were Installed on the PC, and these apps were for trivial things, that have been moved to web sites. So we can function rather well in 2016 with just an web browser as the only application.
We would only need applications for high end work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well, that's about it for me today, but before I run off I'd just like to say how absolutely hilarious it's been chatting about the virtues of the web platform using a web site that's hideously broken. It keeps logging me out, and then when I log back it throws away my context and makes me manually search for where I was again... then I start moving faster to try to post a reply before I get logged out again and I start getting the "Slow Down, Cowboy" message (a blast from the Beebop 90s, that is...).
The usual X-Windows versus Client-Server architecture we've been debating for years. How smart and how local do you want your UI to be?
See subject: You must be getting senile (lol) - Hey, I'm 51 (close), but I still recall the proper name.
I think you MIGHT be thinking OS/2 1.x models using presentation manager...
APK
P.S.=> So - Did you EVER get to see "Predestination" the film yet or what? LOL, it TRULY lends NEW MEANING to "go fuck yourself"... ... & Ethan Hawke RULES!!!
It's "GATTACA" class quality & if you liked that you'll like this film too...
"It's never TOO late to be who you *might* have been!"
(That applies to you & you KNOW in what way - must've taken some courage, I'll give you that much...)...apk
See subject: BarbaraHudson says ac = bad http://slashdot.org/comments.p... yet does stalking by ac of myself http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ... & he/she's been STALKING ME by ac posts ever since (obviously a butthurt sicko), see above. Everyone knows that's been going on my way for awhile & just plain blew that sick fuck tom/barb off years ago, forgetting HE/SHE was doing it long ago.
She out of nowhere one day came into a post where I proved someone wrong on USB in Windows FIRST TIME I MET "IT" (Frank N. Furter sicko tranny BarbaraHudson/TomHudson) & said "APK is a know nothing with no industry experience" years ago AND I BLEW HER DOORS OUT FOR IT -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
He/She said "I was at this & that tradeshow & my work did great: BUT WHEN ASKED TO PROVE IT? ZERO... lol!
Top that all off with the fact the sick in the head FREAK likes starting trouble on this site too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I HAVE NO DOUBT NOW YOU ARE THE ONE AC POST STALKING ME HERE FOR YEARS NOW along with mass downmodding my posts since I showed you can't prove my posts on hosts wrong from the get go... you pitiful loser.
APK
P.S.=> You PITIFUL sick in the head psycho "TraNzTesTicLe" weirdo http://images2.wikia.nocookie....
You've ADMITTED not ONLY that you're a sicko tranny but really mentally ill -> http://slashdot.org/journal/15...
The top of the post shows what a lying fuck you are... the rest of what I put up shows you're a disgusting whacko too... apk
You really pissed me off http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & I have *TRIED* to be nice to you ever since YOU STARTED UP WITH ME ("apk is a no nothing who never worked in the industry" bs for NO REASON - it wasn't YOUR FIGHT there, but you lied about me & then we "went @ it" & you got the shit end of the stick buddy, no questions asked - don't like it? We can do it again...).
DETAILS? Ok -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said you don't LIKE ac posts?
Then WHY ARE YOU STALKING ME BY AC POSTS & rampantly STILL downmodding my posts for (especially on hosts)??
Don't even TRY tell me it's not you - you're already shown a hypocritical liar here & NOW, more than ever, I feel YOU are the main ringmaster doing the ac stalking/harassing of myself and YOUR OWN WORDS SHOW & PROVE YOU DO!
WTF!
I'm convined you're behind it all now, more than ever. After all, look @ what you said to do (stalk & harass me by ac posts). We all know you do "alternate ID's" here (tomhudson/barbarahudson, barbara, not barbie) so how can I believe otherwise?
APK
P.S.=> There's, however, a thing I respect about you: You do post using your real name (afaik @ least) - it takes courage, I'll give you that & integrity (but when you have nothing to lose & can take the "I'm insane/mentally ill" out, it doesn't - & you admittedly can) - however, I don't respect someone that once their ass has been FLOORED (& I have on several levels with you & you're YET TO DO THE SAME, especially as you TELLING OTHERS HERE TO STALK ME BY AC POSTS HARASSING ME TOO (against laws Barb)? I don't respect you for it - drop it, or else)... apk
Habeas Corpus, you said it http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & YES BARB, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.
I'm just showing YOU how it feels... nobody likes it. You tried to orchestrate it... no denying it.
* Barb again: I'm BIG on that, facts, evidence, proof... most of the world is a "show me" dataset of people (only right)... I can & DO show what I am saying with proof that others even back me on (which started this whole show again here, others defending me).
Barb on that & hosts? I'm gaining ground (to the point of others, even WILDERS security forums who attempted to ridicule me years ago on hosts etc. NOW DOING A HOST PROGRAM TOO - imitation = sincerest form of flattery)
APK
P.S.=> Barb, I don't care if you are that way (but it's clearly a sorespot for you or you wouldn't react) - that's YOUR business, but I do value myself highly (extremely so) & my reputation... YOU attempted to damage it in the past + it has continued - you read the above, what would YOU think were it directed YOUR way? Anyone I've ever shown it to says "it's tom/barb" (even legal people)... apk
See subject: I do, clearing the air & others even defend me as you're seeing... the worm IS turning & telling it how it is http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and you're doing it for me via your actions.
I ask that you stop or "man up" (that's what you were @ least right) & have the integrity to admit who started what.
I shouldn't HAVE to do it.
APK
P.S.=> I was trying to be nice to you (you've said & yes, I have that bookmarked too, know thy enemy better than you know yourself even, "I had a chip on my shoulder & my friends noted it"... I can't take the chance you still do & haven't defeated that side of yourself by still taking potshots @ me still is all showing others the REAL BASIS for what's up here (you did start it telling others bs about me in this field and telling others to ac harass me))... apk
See subject: I can with yourself easily... & have. Your own words & actions.
PROJECTING YOUR WRONGDOINGS ONTO ME? Please... I can demonstratably produce it & have... can you??
(Just as I did via hosts points nobody here validly technically disproves, including you, & also "apk is a know nothing that never worked in the industry")
APK
P.S.=> See subject... apk
See subject...
APK
I PROVE THINGS YOU SAID EASILY - you're quoted & not denying it - you don't LIKE tracking? You are tracked here.
APK
P.S.=> "Twas your past that disarmed you mondego" & whose fault is it? Wake up & smell the coffee before you ask me WHY I post ac here... but I DO id myself - troll detractors of mine don't (I know THEY KNOW I've cut them to shreds before & they know I toss it back @ them as I have YOUR WORDS on ac posts & stalking me telling others join you here in it)... you denying it? apk
This article starts off with false statements such as:
"There's a litany of problems with apps."
Is there really? Let's look at the problems this author has mentioned:
1. There is the platform lock-in
This doesn't have to be the case anymore. With Xamarin and other tools, there isn't a platform lock-in. You can code once and deploy to iOS, Android, and Windows Phone, OS X, and Windows Desktop.
2. The space the apps take up on the device.
This is a short term problem that will be resolved by enhanced hardware. In two or four years, we will likely have phones with close to 1TB.
3. Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore, leaving broken or vulnerable versions in use long after they've been allegedly patched.
Really? All my apps auto-update. I get prompted to update ones that require manual updates to re-approve because they are using a new feature. Seems pretty simple to me.
4. Apps are also a lot of work for developers—it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry.
Again, not true. Check out Xamarin and similar tools. If you think html5/CSS/JavaScript is easy in comparison to compiled code, you probably don't have enough experience with the many problems due to different browsers and different devices. Even with standards, the way the standards are implemented are often different.