
It's All Software - diogenescynic
http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/its_all_software
======
pavlov
Gruber: _... Apple’s vision for “access anywhere” is “iPhone everywhere”._

I'm reminded of how Jean-Louis Gassée, head of Apple's Macintosh development
in the late 1980s, responded when asked how they plan to connect Macs to the
network. He held up a piece of phone wire and said "this is our network". This
was a reference to Apple's proprietary LocalTalk protocol which could be used
over regular RJ11 connectors.

The gist of this story is that Apple completely ignored the need for
interoperability with the Mac. The iCloud has a whiff of the same hubris.

~~~
kenjackson
_Gruber: ... Apple’s vision for “access anywhere” is “iPhone everywhere”._

The problem is that the dream of iPhone everywhere is dead for most people.
Android isn't looking back. iPhone will never surpass Android in marketshare
again. For most people, if the iCloud means an iPhone device, that means
iCloud won't be used.

~~~
ugh
Hm, how is “iPhone everywhere” meant, though? I read it as “my iPhone with me
everywhere”, not as “everyone has an iPhone”. You might be talking about two
different things

~~~
kenjackson
Yeah, you're definitely right. Although the lack of ubiquity is still a
problem -- especially if iOS devices stay flat in terms of marketshare. iOS
owners will have to tether everything into their iPhone. People with the other
clouds will have first class support of their cloud data with whatever device
they use.

~~~
ugh
Yeah, those two things are not entirely unrelated. Making having an iPhone
with you everywhere really useful will also depend to some extent on how good
you can collaborate and share with other people.

You shouldn’t forget that connection but I also wouldn’t exaggerate it. Also,
iOS still has a sizable market share, maybe more than the Mac ever had? That
helps, too.

------
joebadmo
This is Gruber at his best. He correctly points out that the distinction
people (including me) seem to be drawing is basically an arbitrary one.

I think the more abstract distinction comes from what each company wants you
to do with their products, though. Apple wants you to use their hardware. What
you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it, and every decision they
make, including leveraging the cloud, is informed by this.

Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web, because the web is where
they get paid. And the web is where we connect to each other.

Google's model makes that connection its fundamental primary motivation, while
for Apple, the connection is incidental, just another feature.

~~~
orangecat
_Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so
much as you using it_

This is unfortunately less true than it used to be. It matters to Apple if you
want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or heaven forbid install Linux on
it. I expect these restrictions will be coming to Macs over the next few
years.

 _Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web_

Google wants you to use Google services and see ads that make Google money.
They don't especially care whether that means web apps with AdSense ads or
native apps with AdMob.

~~~
jbrennan
_It matters to Apple if you want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or
heaven forbid install Linux on it._

Doesn't it make more sense that Apple is trying to build a large and consumer
friendly platform (approved apps) and that it would be an unjustifiable
expense to support installing alternative OSes (Linux)?

Why is there always the assumption of nefarious motivations when it's more
simply explained? They are only trying to make money, after all.

------
ChrisLTD
Apple makes their money from hardware sales, so their services will be locked
or closely tied to _their_ devices. While Gruber may be right with Apple
bringing a web interface to some of iCloud, it won't be their focus. And that
makes perfect business sense.

Google, on the other hand, just wants to serve you ads. That could be on HP,
Dell, Apple, or Samsung hardware (although, I'm sure they'd prefer you bought
Android or Chrome devices).

Personally, I prefer to buy Apple devices and use Google services. Apple makes
the best hardware, but I don't want to be forced into buying them forever.
With Google I can be assured access to my data from just about any future
hardware vendor.

~~~
macrael
Why do you prefer to lock your data to a service provider rather than a
hardware provider? You are still choosing something to hitch your wagon to.

~~~
Kylekramer
The service provider has a reason to make it easy to use their services on any
hardware. Hardware provider has a strong reason to not make it easier to
access their services from third party hardware. So why not go with the
company that doesn't care* how you access them, especially in the context of
your data? It is repeat of why Kindle is much more successful than iBooks.

*Google is blurring the line a bit with Android, but still makes their real money from their services.

~~~
tedunangst
I think you are spot on describing one side, but it's worth looking at the
other side. How do these companies make money? For the hardware company,
that's easy. For the service company, that's monetizing your data. Apple cares
more about how you access data, but less about the data itself. For Google,
they don't care how you access your data so long as their algorithms also have
access.

The Kindle example veers off slightly from Google because people pay for their
ebooks.

~~~
sudonim
Im much more comfortable if the company Im paying makes money on the hardware
I buy and doesn't make money on my data.

~~~
robfig
What makes you think Apple won't make money on both?

~~~
ja2ke
With iCloud Apple will potentially make money off the service because some
customers will pay cash for extras (more space, more services, etc), but
that's it.

Apple is a weird company because for all the eyebrows they raise with talk of
closed systems and hubris and whatever else, they primarily make their way in
the world by selling goods to consumers for money. The infrastructure enabling
that is a crazy thing, but the heart of it is pretty old fashioned.

------
statictype
_Apple solved this with the App Store, though — local native software with
truly simple, obvious, easy installation and complete encapsulation of data._

The app store certainly makes it easy but its no where close to the easy
installation and update of webapps - typing a name and hitting enter or
clicking a link.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Apple's vision of the cloud is
"data in the cloud. apps are local" whereas Google's vision of the cloud is
"data and apps are in the cloud"?

All of Google's client-side software also comes down from the cloud the same
way your data does.

~~~
brisance
We'll have to agree to disagree. URL discovery is still a major problem, it's
what made Yahoo as a human-curated index popular back in the 90s. In my
admittedly anecdotal experience with seniors, many of them still have
difficulty understanding the browser since they are task-oriented, rather than
URL-oriented. And apps are task-oriented. URL bookmarks saved to the home
screen help but are still prone to problems e.g. website alters the landing
page and now the browser returns a 404. No problem for us but a very jarring
experience for seniors who don't know URI.

And Gruber's point is that web apps still require internet access to work,
albeit with improvements like cached storage in HTML 5. Whereas apps on the
mobile device already work and are already taking advantage of sensors onboard
the device, but the internet (cloud) makes them even better. For example,
Garageband for iOS would be really hard to do as a webapp. Not impossible, but
hard.

~~~
wunderfool
"URL discovery is still a major problem"

come on, google search is smarter than the app store search

~~~
brisance
I made no mention comparing the quality of search results because that's a
whole other topic.

I'm saying the App Store has categories, "Staff Picks", "iPad App of the Week"
etc and it helps in discovery, just like Yahoo did back in the day.

Google would have to tread carefully here or they would step on advertisers'
toes or invite anti-competitive scrutiny due to their dominance in search.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Google doesn't have to do this, web takes care of recommendations. We have HN,
Reddit, StumbleUpon, etc.

~~~
ugh
All those things benefit both web apps and native apps.

------
MatthewPhillips
I'm a little tired of the notion that UX == UI == UX. It doesn't. Native apps
clearly have the advantage on UI --- for now --- but on UX it's a lot closer.
Part of UX is being able to sit down on my Linux desktop and not have to worry
about whether I can check my calendar. Part of UX is not having to exit out of
what I'm doing to simple check the weather. Part of it is not having to choose
which computer I buy based on whether it is compatible with the document
format I use. These are just a few of the areas where web aps have a strong
lead in UX (and I'd add "installation" in there as well).

~~~
dodecaphonic
I'd argue that the reason I can keep using Linux is knowing there's good (or
good enough) stuff out there for me to use, the only requirement being that I
have a modern browser and an Internet connection. There's less and less
reliance on some group of people deciding to clone some existing project or
create something from scratch -- boy, do I remember the days of diving deep
into freshmeat.net just to find something that would open PDFs and not suck.

The UX thing is why I'm slowly warming up to the Chromebook idea. I own an
iPhone, and I love Macs, but I think ultimately the constraints of native
applications will work against the users. We should cherish the million
frameworks showing up instead of raising the "too much choice" flag just yet,
as they will (hopefully) yield a development experience as enjoyable as the
current tools for iOS, Android and Windows Phone seem to.

------
ryanisinallofus
I don't think there is a correlation between quality user experience and
desktop software. He breaks down the difference between desktop and web-based
software only to falsely associate one with user experience and one with mass-
adoption.

I think choosing between the two depends on what type of app you plan on
making, the type of users you target, business goals and a ton of other
options.

I love how he's correctly reframed the native vs web discussion but am
disappointed he decided to make it a war again. It's not a holy issue: choose
what's best for your business.

~~~
Hrothgar15
Latency and responsiveness are still a huge problem for web apps, especially
on mobile devices. Elements consistently come into view only when they're
ready, jerkily appearing out of nowhere, as opposed to in native designed
interfaces in which everything is presented instantaneously. UI feedback is
often delayed, inappropriate, or at times nonexistent. This is pretty
consistent across the board.

As for the user experience argument, I'm still looking for a valid excuse why
the Facebook mobile website is so astronomically poorer in all aspects to the
Facebook for iPhone app. In theory, they can and should function exactly the
same when viewed on such a device, but they are leaps and bounds apart.

~~~
ryanisinallofus
Latency and responsiveness are still a huge problem for _all_ network-heavy
apps.

We have a professionally used iOS app that relies on server data (the magical
cloud) and the number one user complaint is speed. Creating your client on iOS
rather than in HTML/JS doesn't give you any magical "Latency and
responsiveness" user experience unicorns.

~~~
glassx
Distributed software will work perfectly, provided it works under perfect
conditions :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing)

------
mgkimsal
Topolsky: "There is no native application for the Mac or iOS that replicates
the shared document editing of Google Docs;"

Gruber: "The first clause isn’t true, I’d argue. Shared document editing is
not an inherent advantage of Google Docs being web-based; a native client
could do it just the same."

Well, sure it _could_ (subethaedit demonstrated that well) but Topolsky
clearly stated that no native apps exist that allow it right now. Great, a
native app _could_. Whoopee. No one's doing it yet. :/

------
6ren
Apple's proprietary web.

It's true the distinction between networked native apps and networked browser
apps is logically arbitrary; but the practical distinction is that the web is
an open standard, cross platform, widely adopted, whereas Apple's native apps
are tightly integrated with the device, giving them faster response and a
better managed user experience. If iOS is everywhere, then you get the best of
both worlds.

Can Apple topple the web? If they are better at providing what users want,
yes.

~~~
wunderfool
"Can Apple topple the web?"

well, then assuming a web page === a web "app"

the number of websites available to users is probably one million times the
number of apps...

the number of new web sites that are started each day is probably one thousand
times the number of new apps....

apple has a ways to go

and yes, i'll go there...you can't "kill" the real web if you do not allow
users to access copious amounts of hardcore pornography

------
Detrus
I'm not so sure Google's long term strategy is to bet it all on browser based
clients and reach at the expense of user experience. They have NativeClient in
ChromeOS, which may be a play to write a more traditional OS but better merged
with the web.

The current state of the web is such a crappy experience for regular consumers
that Apple's model could make some headway against it and Google wouldn't want
to be moving at the pace of standards against them.

~~~
glassx
Agreed. I think they're both fighting at both fronts, when you consider how
Android embraced the app model and even expanded it (widgets etc), and how
Apple was the most vocal of the HTML5 advocates...

------
simonh
Topolsky: ...there’s no mail application that exists for the Mac which will
allow me to access my important information from anywhere in the world with or
without a device in hand.

Yes there is, and I can't believe Gruber missed this. I use the iOS mail
client to access my GMail account. That's the point of Gruber's argument, that
GMail is a service and can have multiple client apps of which the browser app
is just one.

------
egypturnash
99% of my use of GMail is via either Apple's Mail client or the Android client
on my phone. I am probably in the minority for the former, but I'm very much
in the majority for the latter!

------
chalst
The Gmail example doesn't prove the point so well: there's a Javascript-free,
widely used web interface to it that doesn't deserve to be called a client.

Something like Google Maps, or Topolsky's example of Google Docs, supports the
point well enough.

------
fjabre
True cloud computing is when we have nothing but a display device that simply
follows instructions on how to display the GUI that it receives from the
cloud. The browser is a simulation of this future device.

Installing an app on a device is still the old way of doing things. All
aspects of the application should come from the network - including the UI.

Why? Because then we can focus more on the nature of HCI itself instead of
focusing on developing for different devices like we do now. Developers should
be developing for screen sizes - not devices.

IMHO it's inevitable that we will all use one global standard for the client
UI in the future. The web is the beginning of that and it's a powerful
concept.

And let's not forget that every single one of Apple's iDevices will have
Safari installed.

~~~
tewks
This argument is nullified by the fact that computing power continues to fall
in cost, size and power usage.

The user does not and should not care about where his or her application logic
is being run so long as this device is affordable.

The vision you present adds questionable cost savings and substantial latency:
(NY->SF->NY)/c will always take 32ms, best case. Taking this trip
asynchronously instead will make sense for a very long time.

Apple understands that shuffling data between devices is a real burden to
users, so they've attacked that problem instead of chasing an esoteric one.

------
Hrothgar15
Very astute. Gruber gets it.

~~~
pandeiro
You mean the same way some people just 'get' Jesus?

He strikes me as a serious devotee first, analyst second.

~~~
glassx
Did you even read the article? He was quite obvious and unbiased (except - DUH
- on the part where he said "I’m biased"), by acknowledging that both
strategies have pros/cons.

Jesus (to quote you), people like you are worse than fanboys.

------
wunderfool
but most stuff i access is content...and the web is great for content

i mean....does anyone actually install pointless web-in-a-box apps like the
rotten tomatoes app (for example because it bugs the hell out of me to decline
it each time)?

my dsire to consume content is not going away, and having an app-per-url is a
nonstarter

