

Ios, Android, WP7 - who cares? - RiderOfGiraffes
http://jacquesmattheij.com/Ios+Android+WP7+who+cares

======
6ren
As a question of fact, has the mainstream switched from apps to webapps on the
desktop? e.g. for spreadsheets, word processors, text editors, photoshop,
compilers. If not, then the argument becomes "I think B will happen because I
think A will happen".

One argument is that the main barrier to webapps is performance, and as soon
as hardware gets fast enough, webapps will beat desktop apps. Firstly, there's
a question of whether the hardware can ever be "fast enough" and this depends
on the specific applications. An illustration is between Java and C. Java's
JVM was slower but portable (similar benefits as webapps, for similar
reasons). Today, Java is massively popular - but C is also still massively
popular, and I would argue that one reason for this is that performance is
still important for some applications. Perhaps there will be a similar
proportion for webapps.

Secondly, as performance improves, user preferences may switch to some factor
other than webapps first. Smart phones are a prime example: instead of people
staying on their desktop and switching from apps to to webapps, they have
switched from desktop apps to mobile apps. That excess performance is being
spent on mobility rather than the web; people preferred the benefits of a
small, portable form-factor over the benefits of the web. It may be that when
smartphones become powerful enough (dual 1GHz cpus this year), an even smaller
form factor will appear - making high performance software a premium once
again.

Apart from performance, there are network barriers to webapps:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing)

    
    
       1. The network is reliable.
       2. Latency is zero.
       3. Bandwidth is infinite.
       4. The network is secure.
       5. Topology doesn't change.
       6. There is one administrator.
       7. Transport cost is zero.
       8. The network is homogeneous.
    

All this will improve, but will it improve enough? Even if it does eventually,
in the long run, we're all dead.

~~~
lapusta
How many NEW desktop apps have you installed recently?

We obviously won't see Adobe, Autodesk and some other professional software
developers moving their products to web anytime soon, but when we are talking
about the new products - web is usually the winner. Look at Chrome and it's
pace of innovation, check out the examples from Mozilla Demo Studio, could you
imagine that working in all latest major browsers 3 years ago?

Same is true for mobile, I don't see another space for innovation except
improving web performance, integration & so on. Maybe you see some other
directions where iPhone & Android can go?

~~~
nupark
_How many NEW desktop apps have you installed recently?_

I don't install new desktop apps very often because my needs are already
solved. I do nearly all my work in:

\- Mail.app

\- Xcode

\- Eclipse

\- TeXShop

\- Terminal

\- Chrome (JIRA, and browsing documents-not-webapps)

I'd _prefer_ a native application for JIRA, but I haven't found a decent one
yet.

 _Same is true for mobile, I don't see another space for innovation except
improving web performance, integration & so on. Maybe you see some other
directions where iPhone & Android can go?_

I expect the iOS and Android platforms to continue to evolve their core
libraries, providing significant additional functionality and features for use
by mobile applications. Eventually that will slow as the mobile platforms
mature.

I'd like to say that I expect the development of higher-level common platforms
out of web browsers, but outside of (possibly) WebOS, this seems unlikely.

Compared to the web, iOS and Android have comprehensive platform APIs with
consistent widgets and user experiences (iOS more than Android when it comes
to consistency), support for multiple programming languages and runtimes,
immediate access to platform vendor's APIs (playing video doesn't involve an
browser vendors arguing over <video>, etc.

------
trotsky
From where I sit, native applications still rule the day. Sure we spend more
time in our browsers than anywhere else, but at least for me that was true
back when Jacques still has the desktop war raging. IMO there is a good bit of
web entrepreneur/HN hive mind selection bias here - I still go to Libre Office
when I want to make documents, local dev tools for coding, local media
players, local photo editors, etc. Sure, I can do a fair amount of that stuff
"in the cloud" to varying degrees of effectiveness, but that doesn't come
close to the last nail in the native application coffin. And I know a good
number of people who even stick to desktop mail apps.

My point, I guess, is that I don't think the desktop war is dead - in fact
there are a lot of decisions that go into how everyone picks their platform
still today. So I don't really see that going away in mobile either - if
nothing else on many platforms you can't even pick your browser. Also, much
like on the desktop choosing one OS vs. another can really affect your
security posture. In the coming years security is going to be a much bigger
deal to a fast growing segment of the population.

~~~
ChrisCooper
I agree. I think this viewpoint is a little skewed. Web-based applications
have definitely not killed the desktop differences.

However, I think there is a much better chance of them killing the mobile
differences to a greater extent, since

1) we don't do as many processing-intense things on mobile platforms, like
CAD, designing, etc., and

2) those processing-intense applications we actually do use on phones are also
becoming available on the web for the large part.

~~~
forcer
I am actually happy that everyone considers desktop software old dated and
dead - less competition for me :)

From a perspective of windows software ISV (yes, shareware which is supposed
to be dead) I can say that there are lots of opportunities and companies
making some serious money, unlike on the web where everyone expects to get
things for free.

~~~
stanleydrew
Just because everyone expects to get things for free on the web doesn't mean
there aren't companies making serious money. They just make their money
selling something other than software directly.

------
makeramen
I disagree entirely with his main point.

I will still buy a Mac over a Windows machine any day, and I still have
friends who will say the same for Windows and Linux. I have a nice list of
apps and features I cannot live without on my Mac, and my friends have similar
lists for Linux and Windows.

The one thing we can learn from the desktop OS war is that it's far from over,
and so I suspect the mobile OS war will rage on for years (decades?) to come
as well.

I don't disagree that a web based model is ideal for certain applications, but
there are still many applications that leverage client-side machine benefits
like storage, computing power, and responsiveness. And that's where the OS
makes all the difference.

------
blub
I'm seriously thinking of doing web work again, but I'm not kidding myself
that my future Html5 apps will replace/kill the native ones, because html5 is
nowhere near as fast or as well integrated with the platforms.

Instead, I just hope that I can be competitive with (mobile) native apps
eventually and that I can deploy on multiple platforms with a reasonable
effort.

------
ryanhuff
The article completely ignores the "appstore" distribution channel advantage.
This isn't quite the windows/mac application versus web debate of the web 1.0
days. The appstore model significantly lowers the barrier of app consumption
found in the old app distribution models, and brings the total distribution
"cost" to be at least on-par with web apps, with a couple significant
advantages.

Appstores provide near instant consumption, virtually eliminating the
distribution inefficiencies of retail purchases. They also solve the payment
(and collection) problem. Apple shares the same advantage that Amazon has in
online shopping, as they already have my credit card, so purchases are just
easier when going through Amazon, and Apple with the AppStore.

The appstore app model also provides an ongoing consumption advantage over web
apps, as direct integration with the device provides unique to maintain
engagement over the long term. Notification features will keep customers
returning to your app. Also, presence on the home screen is like a built-in
advertisement for your app. While you can add icons for web pages, its not
typically used by most consumers.

I do recognize that developing to HTML5 instead of the specific mobile
platforms can save the developer a lot of time, but it doesn't matter. Its all
about the customer. Whichever model provides the superior overall consumption
experience will win.

Who knows what the future brings, but the argument provided by the author is
void of true analysis of the dynamics at play, and uses an imperfect
historical comparison as a means to justify his view.

------
maxklein
People don't seem to really understand the difference: a web app sits on a
server. A native app is on the device. A web app will ALWAYS have a round trip
time - the web is not instantaneous. So it will ALWAYS be slower than a
locally run app, by its very definition.

Furthermore, a browser imposes buttons and bars on the application that it
does not need. In a mobile app, space is at an extreme premium, and the space
used up by the browser elements are needed.

If we solve these two problems, by making all web based apps download their
logic to the client, and by disappearing the browser entirely, then that's a
native app. It's running locally and it's independent of the browser.

~~~
Qz
_If we solve these two problems, by making all web based apps download their
logic to the client, and by disappearing the browser entirely, then that's a
native app. It's running locally and it's independent of the browser._

I agree with you on this, although the one quibble I can see is that part of
the appeal of web apps has been the idea that you (the user) don't have to
update them, because that all happens on the server side. This can be solved
trivially of course by just having the client side app check it's origin
server for updates whenever the user accesses it, but there's a possibility of
that that could end up rather messy unless update management was a centralized
part of the OS, rather than a free-for-all (Java Updater and Acrobat Updater,
I'm looking at you!).

~~~
maxklein
Chrome auto-updates, you never realise it.

~~~
Qz
Right, Chrome is basically the only program that auto-updates correctly. But
in the context of the myriad other programs that try to auto-update and fail
miserably, or worse, I think my point stands.

------
jwr
I wish HN had a filtering system. I don't know why each of his blog posts
makes it all they way to the top — I don't find them that insightful or
interesting. I would much rather read about software & hacking.

Or is there a JavaScript solution? Has someone implemented a HN filter?

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes

      > I would much rather read about software & hacking.
    

Cool - I'd like to read about those things too. Did you upvote the three
things on software and hacking that I submitted in the past week or so? Have
you submitted any that I could upvote?

    
    
      > Or is there a JavaScript solution?
      > Has someone implemented a HN filter?
    

If you're into software and hacking, perhaps you could provide one for us.

And to more-or-less answer your question, HN was originally "Startup News" and
has always had a bent towards startups. It was widened to "Hacker News," but
it still retains that bias. Strict hacking isn't hitting the majority
audience, it's still heavily slanted towards the startup scene, and things
that interest people who do, or want to do, startups.

That's why Jacques' posts are interesting to people - they are the musings and
observations of someone who has started and runs several software and web
based businesses. Hence they resonate with the majority audience.

But I'd be happy to see and promote anything you post about software and
hacking.

Where's your blog?

------
qusiba
My boss told me, you can not sell a web application on App Store, that's why
we have to hire an iphone programmer to build a client app.

~~~
statictype
You could charge for web apps. And on the plus side, if you do, you don't have
to pay anyone 30% off your price.

~~~
wallflower
Don't underestimate the peer pressure to have an app on the AppStore or, to a
lesser degree, the Marketplace.

Web apps are like the place the cool high school kids and poseurs avoid

~~~
statictype
_Web apps are like the place the cool high school kids and poseurs avoid_

IOW, webapps will (continue to) be making good money 5 years down the line
while iOS apps are bagging groceries at the local supermarket? :)

------
gaiusparx
People have been driving for web interface to rule them all for more than 10
years now. It will never happen in our life time. Those asking for web
interface are mainly driving from tech management point of view, one
development and interface for all devices and platforms. But consumers don't
care and that's why the past few years we see the rise of native mobile
interfaces. I see a future where native interface continues to rule, where the
web is more the backend glues and data that network all together. Web
interface might take a back seat when new generations user interface becomes
standard. Touch has just become the standard, imagine a future with kinect
like or advanced voice interface. Native interface on purpose build interface
devices will have the opportunity to progress and advance the way we interface
with the net and computer.

------
chaosprophet
While I certainly agree with Jacques that this war of mobile platforms will
end with most applications being run off the internet, the reason I still care
about iOS/Android/WP7 is that the days of webapp domination over native apps
on smartphones is quite a long way off, and till then there is a very viable
opportunity to make a decent amount of money off native apps for the various
platforms.

------
revorad
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

~~~
nazgulnarsil
market irrationality is generally due to

1\. a large entity throwing money away to achieve some outcome. he will
eventually be eaten by arbitrage unless he has arbitrary amounts of capital
(state actors)

2\. the person stating this not understanding what a rational market means.

~~~
revorad
It's an analogy, not meant to be taken literally.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
you may want to talk to all the people who take the idea quite seriously as a
critique of market speed in reaching equilibrium.

~~~
iwwr
It just means that you can have large numbers of participants being wrong and
so, by their sheer weight become unmanageable to a smaller entity which
however has the correct picture. This is why short-selling is not for the
faint of heart. You need to know not just that the market is wrong, but when
it will realize it is wrong.

------
rudiger
The problem isn't with the Web, it's with current Web standards. The concept
of a secure platform for rapid application development and world-wide
distribution is great, but Web standards (HTML5 + CSS3 + JavaScript) are
really failing to deliver on their promise.

There are apps written in HyperCard _20 years ago_ that are richer than
anything that has been created on the Web that I know of. With iOS, Android,
WP7, developers are developing better apps faster than is possible with HTML,
CSS, and JavaScript. The Web needs better standards to compete; HTML, CSS, and
JavaScript are a dead-end.

------
roelandp
I think the 'war of mobile OS' as the author calls it will end just as the
also still ongoing 'war for the desktop OS' will end: by the introduction of
the web OS.

An OS is just a GUI for working with your files. As our devices, whether
desktop or mobile, will continue to move towards an 'always on, always
connected' phase it would be no more than logical to seperate the device from
the OS and to launch whatever OS you feel like working with today on any
device you want to launch it on.

Wherever you are in the world, whether it's on a crappy computer (with great
internet connection) in a hostel in Thailand, in the train on your phone, you
will always have your files and operating system of your choice available.

~~~
vdm
I think there will always be places without a network (that works). The web
platform will need a much more functional cache to handle this, but the
architecture is already there.

------
protomyth
I haven't seen Call of Duty or Final Cut Pro in the web yet. Native
applications haven't given up the ghost yet and I really don't expect them to.
They are more responsive to the user and easier to build.

Other than the link 6ren <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2371909>
provided for the Fallacies of Distributed Computing, I believe the problem for
apps on the web are the crappy state of web client development. Project
Builder / Interface Builder or the 1st version of Visual Studio can build
better apps than tool today in an easier manner.

------
danboarder
It's not a zero-sum game with native vs web apps. The web will not kill native
apps, but for many applications the web offers a better platform than native
development. For example, look at the rise of GMail's web client over MS
Outlook - for many users a web client is easier, with mail accessible from any
device with a browser.

New HTML5 features will extend these advantages to more types of apps beyond
webmail. The same question came up over at Quora, with thoughful responses:
<http://www.quora.com/Is-HTML5-the-mobile-app-killer>

------
emehrkay
It does matter, especially when you have Microsoft crippling the web with
their consistently outdated browsers. Just look at what WinPhone7 is running
compared to everyone else's webkit-based solutions. Even when they get their
ie9 on the phone it will still be behind the browsers in ios, android
(including firefox and opera), and the newer blackberries.

We'll be writing if(ie) conditionals for a long time if people start buying
winphone 7

------
kgutteridge
You should seriously consider joining the FAP store, which is for the Brother
IntelliFax 2800.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=120R2-phK0U>

After watching the above pitch; why you would want to do anything in the web
or utilise web technologies, when there are powerful app stores like this
launching on your fax machine, I have no idea ;)

------
csomar
I don't see the desktop becoming obsolete. I can't think of another way to do
my daily tasks without it. I can't think of another way for my clients too. A
tablet and a smart phone are a great addition for my client X, but they don't
replace his desktop computer. The iPad, iPhone and Xbox are enough for the
kids to have fun, but when they want to browse the Internet and do a
presentation, I doubt that the iPad is flexible and powerful enough. I doubt
also that Google SpreadSheet is flexible and powerful as Microsoft Office
Powerpoint.

A new trend has emerged (Internet + SmartPhones) because we have (the citizen
of Planet Earth) become excessive technology users. We have become data
holics. We like communication and Internet had just made it easier and more
accessible. People got addicted to Information and the awesomeness of
technology. That's why they buy the iPad. If they affrod it, they'll pay for
it. People pay for the desktop because they need it. Different people have
different usages. Some poeple don't use a PC everyday, but a one week usage
justifies the purchase.

------
wedesoft
Who cares? Developers do! For example Nokia's decision to ditch Qt4 means that
we have to wait for "write once, run anywhere" even longer. And I am not so
sure whether the browser will solve it all again. I think Microsoft and Apple
are going to make sure that this won't happen again. In fact they already did
so by removing the customers' freedom to install and run software of their
choice.

------
apl
In what world have online office solutions or, even better, web-based photo
editing software replaced their Desktop counterparts for even the simplest use
cases? I see no widespread adoption at all, which renders the argument moot.

Whoever thinks web apps have already taken over lives in a very peculiar
bubble.

------
tytso
There are certainly plenty of native desktop applications which have not been
supplanted by web applications. But the bigger problem is that desktop
machines typically have high speed, almost unlimited data connections.

This is not necessarily true for mobile platforms, where there can be coverage
issues, bandwidth limitations due to insufficient spectrum and/or cell power
buildout, or worse yet, magic break points after which you pay $$$/kb uploaded
or downloaded. This is one of the reasons why local storage and native
applications may be much more important for mobile applications. No one
expects to bring a desktop computer onboard an airplane or a subway and be
able to read e-mail. But they do expect to be able to do this on a mobile
device.

------
sogrady
If I'm Apple, Google, or Microsoft I'm going to care a lot because - native or
web - users need a platform for applications, and those platforms represent a)
revenue potential (see the iPad business) and b) a potential control point
(see MSFT for the past two decades). As far as I'm concerned, the native vs
web application question is secondary to the platform question. We're going to
have both, and yes web clients will increase share. That doesn't change the
fact that whoever is supplying the most popular platform for apps - web or
native - will have control and profit potential in spades.

------
credo
The PC/Mac app market was fairly small for independent developers and very few
people bought a large number of desktop apps. It is true that the web (mostly
free sites and e-commerce sites) was able to deliver a lot of new "apps" to
desktop users.

However, imo the post is mistaken in assuming that the mobile world will be
exactly like the desktop world. The mobile app store economy is evolving in a
very different way from the desktop world. That, in itself, is an indication
that mobile app world may not _"fade away to be replaced with the www
equivalent of mobile"_

~~~
Swannie
Is mobile app store popularity a fad?

In some ways I think not. In many ways it looks like the latest GameBoy,
Nintendo DS market, combined with the PDA market. These are not new markets,
only their ease of use is new, and for PDA type apps, exposure.

But it seems most people install new apps, and only use a very small subset.
As the novelty of a phone with an app store wears off, I suspect we will see a
return to people only installing a few apps. Much in the way as the shareware
scene - I used to try out lots of apps. Now I generally only install a small
set of proven, good, open source/free tools, and try one or two others a year.
Often prompted by personal recommendations.

------
tobylane
It's not just the difference in app numbers, in app quality, in app language
(you can probably do more with 1gb of memory in objc than java), but it's the
integration, the user experience. On the computer, it's all well and good
doing everything on your browser, but unless you're in full screen mode you're
seeing something other than the page you're on. Apple does that bit best. (and
others, but it's further ahead in the look of the out-of-app bits)

------
smokey_the_bear
More people would use desktop apps if they were easier to install. I tried to
talk my mom through installing skype the other day, and we hit a snag. So she
just used the video chat in gmail. Skype would have been better for her for
various reasons, but she settled. If Skype were in an app store, she'd have
bought it.

I install way more software when I'm in a linux environment, since it's just
one simple command to do so.

------
yaix
I don't think that the OS "war" will necessarily lead to an open, web based
standard. It may well be that one of the contenders manages to make their
"platform" so irresistible to users that they flock to that one OS, and we all
will have another "MS" for a decade or two.

Its also the job of every developer to "guide" the users towards the best
choice. More apps should have a browser version, for instance.

------
myshoppio
interesting, I would say this is no different to any other inovation we have
had in the past. Look at the car for instance it doesn't matter how fast it
can go according to it's speedometer or what version of gas you buy, you are
limited to the speed limit on the road you are travelling on at that time. So
mobile Telco's will need to play a more direct role in delivering content more
efficiently, for instance why have all the infrastructure laid out and
bandwidth paid for for all the $$$ flying past which they can't get in on. Why
not host something, apps, search, whatever and make mobile data, faster and
more efficient. Hell how come no matter what TV you have you can get a decent
picture without any download issues. Maybe we are too focused on hardware and
not delivering stable, fast, realtime content.

------
Ruudjah
I completely agree. I'm curious how we would abstract the rest of the hardware
though. cam/mic/sensors can't be accessed from javascript (yet?).

------
leon_
> the web literally blew away the platform differences to something that is
> comparable to a flavor rather than a huge technical difference or advantage.

yeah, web photoshop and web office are real alternatives ...

~~~
stanleydrew
This isn't a particularly insightful comment, but I get your drift. The thing
is, for the generation of teenagers and young adults, web-based software is
actually relatively easier to use than native software because they grew up on
the web. Even if you sacrifice some functionality using Google docs instead of
Word, many people prefer the benefits of an instant-on, no-install, free,
auto-syncing solution. So yeah, it is a viable alternative.

~~~
leon_
Yeah, but it doesn't mean the desktop war was lost/won.

Desktops are the niche of professional (or power) users. Tablets are where the
web will point - because tablets (and phones) will be how the casual user will
"compute" in the future.

So to me, web apps will never (well not in the near future) win the desktop
war - just because they can't offer the speed and power a professional user
needs.

