

Will Apple Embrace the Web? No. - zmmz
http://www.osnews.com/story/23378/Will_Apple_Embrace_the_Web_No

======
ynniv
"claim chowder" is right... If Apple's plan is to sell more hardware through
Safari lock-in, it's time to short their stock because they're doing it
_allll_ wrong. Safari can't be "the next IE6" because it lacks proprietary
features, and the bulk of its difficult to reproduce technology is open source
and in fact, already in competitive use. Even if Safari were the best HTML5
platform, Chrome/Epiphany/(new WebKit browser) would provide an escape from
lock-in.

And, they're going to do this by not supporting NaCl? Really? Let's call NaCl
x86-Flash and be done with it. Running NaCl on an ARM processor is going to be
way too slow. I get that people want to see performant web applications, but
the way to do that is via a cleaner, more portable VM, like the LLVM project
that Apple is funding.

So, shame on me for taking a bite of spam thinking it would be meaty.

~~~
stcredzero
_If Apple's plan is to sell more hardware through Safari lock-in, it's time to
short their stock because they're doing it allll wrong. Safari can't be "the
next IE6" because it lacks proprietary features_

Uhh, isn't the entire iTunes App Store/ecosystem one very large 800lb gorilla
of a _proprietary feature?_ I think that's what they're betting the farm on.
Devs will keep writing apps because of the gold rush mentality, and users will
stay with the iTunes App Store ecosystem.

However, I agree with you that they're wrong. Unless iTunes App Store apps can
stay compellingly better than Web apps, then Apple's strategy is flawed.
Through HTML5 and NaCl, Google hopes to enable a compellingly good (natively
supported) UX on any browser on any tablet, smartphone, or other mobile
device. This will act to commoditize all mobile devices.

Google vs. Apple was inevitable. Google is motivated to commoditize its
complements and one of the complements is mobile device hardware. Hardware is
a core of the Apple business.

EDIT: The question you need to ask, "Is there any fundamental reason why a
'Web app' can't do everything a native app can?" The answer is no. Integration
with the native OS won't be so much of an issue on an iPad-like tablet -- the
whole point of it is that the OS gets out of the way! There are security
issues with accessing local resources like the baseband, GPS, and filesystem,
but these are solve-able. in fact, they're already been solved in non-
mainstream systems.

EDIT: Will Apple go the way of Sun? Not necessarily. There will always be pain
points in everyone's personal digital infrastructure. Apple will always be
able to carve out a niche at the high-end of UX. The danger is that Apple will
get stuck in a rut and get left behind at the high-end of irrelevance.

~~~
bradleyland
'The question you need to ask, "Is there any fundamental reason why a 'Web
app' can't do everything a native app can?" The answer is no.'

I'm not sure that "no" is as clear as it seems. There are lots of things that
are technically possible, but don't gain any traction in the market because of
their inherent shortcomings. It depends upon which "fundamentals" you're
looking at. Are we talking technology fundamentals or experience fundamentals.
From the experience perspective, I feel inclined to side with Steve Jobs on
the notion that cross-platform software represents a lowest common denominator
approach to UX.

For all the flack that SJ is taking over his stance on Flash, his open letter
on the topic re-solidified his software philosophy. SJ -- and by proxy, Apple
-- believe that in order to deliver the best software experience possible, one
must control the software ecosystem from end-to-end. However, there is a
dichotomy within Apple that few people have come to terms with. When it comes
to the web, Apple is "open". It's about the only place that they could truly
be called such, but they are, none the less. Jobs' comments in his open letter
spell it out in words, and their continued commitment to WebKit shows it in
action.

The problem with discussing experience fundamentals is that objectivity
remains out of reach. Some people prefer a tiled, line-mode display to a
bitmap GUI. I'm fine with that. Why wouldn't I be? What's aggravating is when
any one individual foists their preferences upon the masses. I prefer the
experience that Apple has managed to deliver, and that means giving up some
ground on things like software freedom. That's _my_ choice to make, and the
author here is bending over backwards to paint a false picture of Apple,
Safari, and the web in general, just so we can all bite our nails over some
Apple-controlled future. It's just ridiculous.

------
rauljara
He shows that apple is in a position to make safari the next ie. I'm not
really seeing any evidence here that apple is, in fact, making safari the next
ie. In fact, the first several paragraphs of are all full of evidence that
apple is embracing the web, but those are all dismissed without a solid reason
I could detect.

------
superk
Dude lost me with "Essentially, as long as the iPhone and iPad are able to
retain mind-share, developer support and an unignorable market-share then
Apple can shape the lowest common denominator for the web (even if that low is
very high, like the best HTML5 / CSS3 support)"

~~~
bartl
He is talking about the smart phone market. You may add the iPad (tablets) to
that.

~~~
superk
Yeah, I was refering specifically to the "lowest common denominator ... like
the best HTML5 / CSS3 support" non sequitur...

------
benno
Progressive enhancement.

When web applications are available on all devices, but work better on some
devices than others, people have an incentive to switch -- and that puts
pressure on Apple to keep their browser competitive.

Note the large number of people that make video game console purchasing
choices based on how well their favorite cross-platform games perform on each
of the respective consoles.

------
thewileyone
The author is right. Apple is trying to lock everyone into native apps and by
doing so, selling more iPhones, iMacs, iPads, etc. But the web, and Google, is
going to pass them by because Apple is not going to be able to change its
business model fast enough to meet these demands, a lesson that many companies
have failed to heed when planting their stakes in the ground.

In round one, Apple lost to Microsoft because they took the position that the
hardware, not software, made the market.

In round two, Apple is again playing the same cards; the hardware sets the
rules and the software feeds the hardware.

They'll lose out again ... to Google.

------
vrode
When you embrace the web you get all sticky

