

Why you’d be stupid to bet against HTML5 - marcieoum
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/european-technology/why-youd-be-stupid-to-bet-against-html5/1254

======
kaolinite
HTML5 apps are good for the company making them, not for the user using the
app. Almost all the best apps (i.e. the apps you want to use not the apps you
have to use) are native. That doesn't mean they're worthless, they're great
for getting an app out quickly (e.g. Wunderlist, who released non-native then
made a native app).

LinkedIn put a lot of time and effort into their app, it is pretty good,
though a little laggy even on a Galaxy S2 which should be powerful enough. The
Financial Times doesn't really care too much about user experience I'd
imagine, as long as the users get the content.

But er, I resent being called stupid for betting against HTML5 for mobile app
development. No need for such a confrontational title :-)

~~~
bornhuetter
I think thats very much personal preference.

As a user, I almost always prefer the browser version. The main reason for
this is that the browser controls are always there. For example, forward and
back are always there, save for offline reading, and bookmarking is always
there. Always in the same place.

I've tried a few native apps for news and social sites, but I've removed
almost all of them because I found them harder to use than the browser. Some
other people seem to love native apps though.

~~~
kaolinite
Browser is different to a HTML5 mobile app. A HTML5 mobile app is one you
download from the app store. I'm a big fan of the browser and I'm a big fan of
native apps - I just don't like it when I download an app (especially if I
have to pay) expecting a native app, and then I get a HTML5 app.

~~~
bornhuetter
Gotcha, I thought you were arguing against HTML5 in general. I agree that
HTML5 mobile apps are not currently as good as native, and I'd prefer native
as a user.

I think in the future HTML5 mobile apps will be good, especially if Winmo8
and/or Firefox OS gain traction, but if I were a developer in that space I
would stick with native for the moment.

------
jameshsi
I think the HTML5 vs Native debate is less about the software as it is about
hardware support on a corporate or communal level. As a software developer,
i've been hoping HTML5 would take off since I first learned about it. However,
in mobile, there seems to be a trend for hardware and software synergy.. a
preference to really own the vertical stack and have full control over the
experience and in order to build a great phone. On the native side, the titans
of Google, Microsoft, and Apple all have their weight behind their own
respective platforms.

While the community in software for HTML5 is strong, the reason i'm starting
to bet against is because of the lack of love from the hardware side of
things. I'm not sure I can imagine a large existing company in hardware
pushing HTML5 as far as its own native platform. Without a phone or mobile
device built and designed with HTML5 in mind, is it really possible for the
fortress to crumble inside out?

~~~
mikecane
>>>Without a phone or mobile device built and designed with HTML5 in mind, is
it really possible for the fortress to crumble inside out?

What do you think of these two Intel demos that show River Trail speeding up
HTML5:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hhksxH1Wco&feature=share...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hhksxH1Wco&feature=share&list=PL27DC1B760EA680E9)

... and giving JavaScript multiples cores:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGfMllFyuM&feature=share...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGfMllFyuM&feature=share&list=PL27DC1B760EA680E9)

If that happens on the desktop, won't people also demand it on mobile devices
too?

------
paupino_masano
I don't think "betting against it" is accurate terminology - the general
consensus is more that the mobile device infrastructure isn't ready for HTML5
yet (in terms of performance etc). I think it will catch up... probably within
the next couple of years, but until then we need to think about our current
users and the experience they receive.

On a side note I see the article mentioned using a hybrid app - I think that
is an acceptable "in-between" at the moment. Personally though I have found
maintaining hybrid applications cost a lot in extra development time - I
really hope it pays off in the long term.

~~~
lukifer
I don't think it has to be binary: [ ] ready [x] not ready. It's ready for a
certain set of use cases and platforms, but not everything, much as Hypercard
was ready for calculator clones, but not 3D flight simulators.

The internet itself is a prime example of the value of a common platform
accessible by nearly any device. That doesn't mean such a platform needs to be
all things to all people.

------
mbesto
A couple of things:

1\. Facebook's app isn't pure native today. They simply shifted more of the
development to native than was before. LinkedIn does the same thing. _"For
areas within the app where we anticipate making changes more often, we will
continue to utilize HTML5 code, as we can push updates server side without
requiring people to download a new version of the app."_ [1]

2\. "Now nobody says Java is slow" - Seriously?

3\. "This is like what we saw 30 years ago with the PC, with hundreds of
standards and everyone wanting to produce their own PC." - No, it's not. This
is a different set of fragmentations. Mainly having to do with OS
fragmentation (which didn't exist with Win dominance) and displaying
information on a limited canvas.

4\. Curious...what motivation does Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, etc have to
advance their browser engines? When we talk about "HTML5 maturing" isn't this
what we are waiting for?

[1] - [https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-
th...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-the-hood-
rebuilding-facebook-for-ios/10151036091753920)

------
nuttendorfer
My problem with HTML5 is that you have to use JavaScript on the client. Until
browser vendors implement other languages I'll stick with native.

~~~
hobonumber1
If you dislike JS so much, why don't you use some cross-compiler?

~~~
crististm
JS is (unfortunately) the only choice when you target browsers. I don't see
any intrinsic advantage that can make it the go-to language.

It's the lack of choice that I find problematic.

------
marknutter
I hope people continue to bet against it so those of us seeing productivity
gains from utilizing it can continue to outmaneuver the competition.

