

The case against apps - lnguyen
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/story/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/07/27/web_apps_imprint

======
demallien
From the article: "Additionally, Apple and Google have tight control over
which apps make it into their inventory. These factors result in a system that
is not exactly an innovation breeding ground. The real innovation has already
happened -- the creation of the marketplace itself."

Which shows exactly where the author goes wrong. The innovation isn't in the
marketplace, it's in the platform - iOS or Android. Specifically, apps allow
much richer user interfaces than what you can do on the web: geolocation,
movement detectors, always-with-you, gesture support and so on. They also
allow much greater control over things such as usage of resources, allowing a
better user experience. Quite simply, from a programmer's perspective, web
apps are a long way from providing the necessary tools to come even close to
equaling those available on mobile platforms.

The fact that there is a marketplace where apps can be sold is probably one of
the _least_ innovative things about apps.

To paraphrase - "It's the platform, stupid!"

------
mechanical_fish
Having skimmed the article, I find that the author is the victim of his own
poorly chosen title. (Or his editor's choice of title.)

This is no generic argument against apps. It's an argument against apps in the
specific context of publishing, and mostly prose publishing at that. That is a
rather stronger argument to make. The web browser was designed as a surfing
tool for writing and that is still its strong suit. The best app for browsing
text _is_ the browser, though admittedly this point is often lost because the
browser is routinely abused to deliver crappy ad-festooned design disasters.
(The best alternatives to browsers, like Instapaper, are arguably just
browsers with very strict style guidelines.)

------
dredmorbius
I've got to agree with a lot of the sentiment here.

I've got ... a few apps on my phone. Most were pre-loaded.

The big ones: "phone" (that's an application, really), browser, email, SMS,
maps, agenda, contacts, camera.

Some administrative / management apps: configuration, WiFi, tethering,
torch/flashlight, audible/vibrate/silent/airplane mode select.

Some informational apps: a few commute schedules, calculator.

Radio, music, ssh client. That's 99.99% of my usage right there. A few others.

Notable failures: an RSS reader. Problem: too many feeds offer too little
content. I'll just hit the Web.

I've just added a G+ app.

There are a few other odds and ends I might use once in a blue moon, but
rarely.

There's only so much time, and for I/O, phones suck. They're good from a here-
and-now perspective, but not much else.

I'm seriously paranoid about the data on my phone, and either losing or
leaking it. There aren't any particularly good solutions (from a "works" and
"I'm comfortable with") perspective.

The notion of app proliferation reminds me of the small-app PC market of the
late 1990s (about the time Free Software was taking off). In the Linux/BSD
world, duplicate effort generally resolved with one project dominating or two
projects merging (there's still some duplication, but not tons). While
everyone and his kid brothers dog writes a caculator app for Windows. Which
... don't share data with one another. I see the mobile app world as very
similar, and strongly suspect it will consolidate to the Web (for
informational stuff) with some exceptions (UI or data requirements dictate
local intermediation).

------
oflannabhra
This articles arguments, like most I've read heralding mobile web apps over
native ones, really only applies to content already on the web (eg. his Wired
example). In that context it makes sense. In the more common context of a
developer wanting to build a, for example, load bearing calculator for
structural engineers, those arguments make no sense.

Developers flock to the Market and App Store because they offer two things:
discoverability and compensation. Chrome Web Store has tried to be a solution
for webapps here, but really those issues still stand for webapps. And to be
honest, with the sheer number of apps in the App Store, and Market's search
issues, I'm beginning to question whether a discoverability advantage still
exists.

------
o_nate
It's interesting how mobile has totally reinvigorated the notion of stand-
alone apps. On the desktop, stand-alone apps were going the way of the
dinosaurs - everything was moving to the web. Web apps are easier to deploy,
easier to support, easier to control access to, and there's no more badgering
users to upgrade. The main drawback was the more constrained UI experience.
Now suddenly apps are all the rage again, thanks to mobile. I wonder if
eventually the advantages of web deployment will win out in the mobile space
as well, once the novelty of apps has worn off.

------
thom
You're still here, writing these articles about how the mobile app economy is
somehow going to disintegrate in favour of a return to web apps? It's over. Go
home. Go.

------
shrikant
Well shucks.

So when they say 'apps', they really mean 'mobile apps'. Is this yet another
battle the techies have lost against popular media?

~~~
mechanical_fish
Yes. And the battle is against Apple's marketing, not the media in general.

Apple itself may be powerless to stop the trend. (Just because they built the
trend doesn't mean they control it.) They built a "Mac app" store, so they're
trying, but I just had a difficult conversation with an octogenerian who was
trying to answer the question: Can I run apps on my Mac? And after going round
a few times I finally concluded that the only user-friendly answer is: "No".
Because 99 times out of a hundred "apps" means "mobile apps", and it is hard
to even introduce the Mac app store into the equation without creating total
confusion.

------
brmj
I'd like to briefly point out that the "economic oligarchy" argument is just a
special case of one of the classic Marxist arguments against capitalism in
general. Take that as you will.

