This is a pretty weird article, and fairly obviously just an advertisement for appcelerator.
So, native wins over html5- for what actual purpose? Isn't this something you evaluate on a case by case basis depending on client, need, budget, maintainability, and on and on? What prize exactly has native "objectively" won?
Isn't this the thinking that has led to the plague of "DOWNLOAD OUR APP" banners preventing me from seeing anyone's content when I'm on a mobile phone? Have native apps won so hard that nobody can bear to look at a piece of text without a round trip to the app store?
Beyond discussing if appcelerator uses this kind of post for advertising (is their blog, isn't it?). The point is valid and I am upset when this discussion is not based on real facts.
For example, currently html rendering performance is very slow but surely will be improved in the near future. My personal problem is when it's intolerable slow.
You can mostly make HTML5 "fast enough", if you know where all the sweet spots are. A comparison of a finely tuned native app, to a a naively built html5 coded up with much the same methodologies as a 1999 dhtml site, ignorant of the the constraints and allowances of the mobile platform, seems hardly fair, but that's what most people are going to see.
failure to use even easy performance wins like html5 app cache, css3 3d transforms (hardware accelerated), local storage, etc. etc.
But it's all tech, which is putting the cart before the horse. I'm a local mom and pop grocery store. Do I need an app?
"- the security of the source code of itself; browser source code is open for all to see, and to then work around."
The author just lost all credibility, in my eyes, with this claim. Security by obscurity is well established as a myth. Like the author says: there is no debate.
"- the security of data at rest on the device; on a native app, it’s completely secure. In HTML, the browser is typically not secure and as a result exposes the data it’s accessing within its caches."
It's completely secure, except when it isn't. The recent Android signing flaw is a perfect example.
"- the security of data in transit; when using HTML, you are pretty much restricted to using SSL. VPNs are just too slow. With native apps, you can also run VPNs and other encrypted solutions, without ruining performance."
How does SSL ruin performance? Data is encrypted either way. And how many apps really use anything but TCP streams anyway, such that HTTPS with pipelining is sufficient?
Best to leave security experts to make comments about security, eh?
The author totally ignores that fact that apps are created for different reasons, different audiences, and have different goals. It's no wonder he seems quite full of himself:
"Almost a year ago I wrote a white paper...Strangely, though, the debate rages on."
Well there are more than 1000 apps added in the phonegap.com library built with html for ios. While that's negligible it's certainly not to be frowned upon. There are some big names too.. check the featured apps.
This always comes back to the same arguments, we had this conversation multiple times now. Yes native is better, but you can still build a good quality app with html compatible of multiple platforms, specially if your app is only a text crud.
But in the case of Appcelerator they seems to certainly do not want open technology like html5 to win & prefer selling their tech.
"You certainly have to factor in costs for going native for multiple OSs, although solutions like Appcelerator will help reduce those costs significantly"
What a joke. Native wins big at security because "the security of the source code of itself; browser source code is open for all to see, and to then work around.". These people obviously don't understand that security through obscurity generally doesn't work. Their claim would also mean that an open system like Linux would be less secure than Windows.
> 7) Immediate updates & distribution control (HTML wins)
Aha, doesn't even consider wrappers like phonegap.
Another of those lame articles that doesn't look at the whole picture instead only extremes.
The security paragraph is a bad joke in itself. I'd say this is a really bad advertisement for appcelerator when they have to resort to such bad claims.
I really don't agree... I often get those pop up notifications to download an app when I surf on forums or news sites... never dowloaded one of them because it's just a pain in the ass and not worth it. Why should I download an app just to access an article?
So, no I don't always prefer native apps when I can get them.
OK...but for actual applications that perform some specific functions? In other words, not news/article websites pretending to be apps...
Some examples: A voice recorder. A calculator. A camera application. A compass. A drawing program. A photo editor. A program that auto-tunes your voice. Games.
As a matter of fact, even for those non-app websites that offer an app - I find the app usually offers a better experience compared to the site, but like you - I'm not installing a separate app for each one of them.
The experience might be better, but there might be other valid reasons not to use them. That's a trade off vendors have to have in mind as well. Native apps are not always the optimal solution given certain constraints.
I will concede that in the current non-ideal environments in which we work and play - there are all sorts of reasons that I don't want to use a native application. For instance - I will never install a social network application even if I belong to the network. I'd rather go to the site in an incognito browser tab.
In my ideal world, I'd prefer a native app for all things. The web sucks in my opinion. Honestly, I wish there were a browser that dealt exclusively in native GUI elements and other computing resources. I'd also want some very finely-grained native resource permission controls.
I think the vision for HTML5 or the future web is actually pretty close to what you envision. You just mark up your information and the browser represents it in the "right" way (e.g. native implementations). The HTML5 form field types are a step in that direction. However, don't know if all developers/designers like that vision. Stifles creativity...
I'd like to agree with you, but I don't think HTML5 is going to change anything unless they get rid of the HTML part.
I don't every want to layout my UI by saying "div div div div div div div". I want to say "window menubar toolbar grid treeview datagrid statusbar" and then I want it to show me the native representation of those things.
Yeah, that's why the spec started to introduce semantic tags (http://www.pageresource.com/html5/semantic-tags/). I'm not arguing that we are anywhere close to what you want, I'm just saying that the web is evolving in that direction.
So, native wins over html5- for what actual purpose? Isn't this something you evaluate on a case by case basis depending on client, need, budget, maintainability, and on and on? What prize exactly has native "objectively" won?
Isn't this the thinking that has led to the plague of "DOWNLOAD OUR APP" banners preventing me from seeing anyone's content when I'm on a mobile phone? Have native apps won so hard that nobody can bear to look at a piece of text without a round trip to the app store?