

The death of the URL - genieyclo
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/16/the-death-of-the-url/

======
derefr
Not everything needs to converge to become a Free and Open, Turing-complete,
net-neutral web machine. I don't need to surf the web on my TV; I have a
laptop on my lap most of the time I'm watching TV. I want my TV to expose the
TV interface, not the Turing Machine interface; that's why I bought it and not
another laptop. There is room in the world fo both special-purpose and
general-purpose machines, and the Internet is a utility they can both be built
upon.

~~~
dejb
You sound like one of those people who used to argue that you just want you
mobile phone make calls and that putting cameras and software into them was
pointless cause you could just carry camera an PDA everywhere.

Personally I see the TV as just another monitor which may or may not also
contain a general purpose operating system.

The difference is with a really big monitor is that you can share what you are
looking at with other people in the room , some of whom may not have a laptop
glued to their legs. So for example you can do stuff like taking turns at
selecting your favourite youtube videos.

~~~
derefr
I never said you _couldn't_ have a TV that allows general-purpose access to
the web. But _also_ having TVs that are "just" TVs gives you _more_ options,
not fewer. Devices can integrate, but the future is not one kind of device
that does everything (e.g. a phone that is also a TV that is also a toaster
that is also a book reader that is also a game console); it's an infinite
variety of devices that represent the power set of all possible device
synergies.

~~~
dejb
A world full of crippled devices that only allow you to use them in the
specific ways that the manufacturer allows (or has thought of) does not give
you more options - it gives you less options.

The reason I say crippled is that a general purpose TV (or other device) can
encompass all the functionality of specialist device. It can even masquerade
as a specialist device, only exposing its extra functionality to users who
really want it. Often it is easier for the manufacturer of the device to use a
general purpose operating system to build their specific functionality on. So
the specialist device is actually just a crippled version of a more generally
capable device.

Remember we are only talking about computation here, not hardware
capabilities. A TV with a inbuilt toaster is a stupid idea because you are
combining hardware capabilities without any real purpose. However if both the
TV and the toaster are controlled by processor chips with networking
capabilities then why not let them to talk to each other? Why not allow a
toastcam app to run on the TV? Why not a allow an app that would allow to to
draw a shape on the TV's touchcreeen and that shape would be burnt onto the
toaster? We are obviously talking about a future with very cheap processing
power here (and very precise heating in toasters) but that is the direction
things are moving in.

------
joemi
All those questionable examples and not one mention of search engines? I'd
argue that search engines are a much much bigger threat to URLs than all of
the author's examples combined. (You don't need to know a URL if you can just
search for the site name!) But it's also a counter-example: search engines
haven't killed the URL yet, so I doubt any of those other examples will.

~~~
factoryjoe
Good point. While I provided a bunch of examples, I didn't exhaust the number
of examples of this trend. Search is another, and so are mobile experiences
(beyond the App Store).

At least with search there's a degree of "infinite" in the results. Of course,
the results are defined by SEO and robots.txt files, and so aren't as
egalitarian as URLs, but search engines are another example of the increasing
minimization of URLs in interfaces.

------
thaumaturgy
I was tempted to stop reading after the WebTV example, and did actually stop
reading after the "slicker, simpler interfaces" example.

A couple of points: first, none of these ideas or vaporware products are doing
anything to prevent anyone from using the web the way they want to. You can
still buy a new computer, install Firefox, and type in a URL. I would be
somewhat more worried if, for example, Microsoft made it impossible to type
URLs into Internet Explorer, but that's not the case. (And even then, as long
as other browsers exist, it's not that big of a deal.)

Secondly, I doubt the author has worked with the "average" computer user all
that much. I do, every day, as an IT consultant -- whether with individuals or
employees of large or small companies. The great majority of them don't know
what the "address bar" is; if I ask them to go to "www.google.com", they click
on their homepage -- whether it's yahoo or iGoogle or what-have-you -- and
type "www.google.com" into the _search box_.

These companies are trying to serve a market, and it's a very real -- and
_very large_ \-- market of users that don't know an IP from a URL, and they
definitely are confused by this stuff.

Hell, one of my clients was _furious_ with me because every time she clicked
on her email address on the new website, it opened up Outlook Express on her
computer, and dammit, she uses Gmail...

~~~
mkeblx
Although how to handle mailto: links is a browser setting, of course, you
could have detected her IP and redirected her to GMail. That's probably why
she was furious with you.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I can't tell if this is a joke or not. :-) She was more concerned that the
mailto: link wouldn't work on other people's computers, and wanted me to fix
it so that it would.

I replaced the mailto with a contact form.

------
coderdude
I don't see his examples as the death of URLs at all. The underlying
technologies will continue to rely on URLs, not to mention the legion of
systems and standards with the URI as a backbone. I see this as the URI being
shoved further down the stack. The more we can abstract above the URI, the
easier it will be for everyday people to get to what they point to.

------
BerislavLopac
Well, I can't phreak my phone anymore. I can't finetune my Toyota Prius. I
can't switch video cards in my laptop. I can't freeride on a tram hook
anymore. Or if I can, it's much more difficult and/or dangerous than it used
to be.

That's technological progress for you. Deal with it.

------
alttab
I thought it was ironic that the beginning of this article shows that specific
_Matrix_ scene.

It simply comes down to choice - would you want the URL, or not?

38 years after the advent of C, programmers use it everyday (well, at least I
do). Back to URLs - web developers still use URL construction as access to
resources (REST).

It simply comes down to choice - what knowledge do we want/need to have
control over?

URLs are still useful, and they will be because the internet is still
maturing.

Phone numbers, on the other hand, could propose a more convincing argument.
But this is only recently becoming a reality over 130 years later.

------
pohl
The inclusion of the App Store as an exhibit doesn't seem relevant. URLs are
artifacts of the web. The App Store is for the purchase of native
applications. Yes, it's not an open platform, but things have been this way in
the mobile space for a long time, and it has nothing to do with the web or
URLs.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_Runtime_Environment_for_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_Runtime_Environment_for_Wireless#Criticism)

~~~
factoryjoe
I would disagree. Just because the App Store is designed to make it easier to
get apps onto the phone, nothing prevents these apps from being accessible by
URLs. In fact, many iPhone-friendly apps are available as web apps that simply
look and behave like native apps — and the distinction between native and web
is becoming evermore so slight.

I think that there is a role for App Stores in the future, but I think that
the healthiest future would be comprised of hybrid app stores that give you
access to the best web and native apps — without having to distinguish. Thus
you could go through the app store if you want the exposure, or you could go
directly to the web app's URL if you knew it.

Seems simple enough to me.

~~~
pohl
_...nothing prevents these apps from being accessible by URLs._

That's true. In fact, they already are:

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/super-monkey-
ball/id281966695...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/super-monkey-
ball/id281966695?mt=8)

~~~
factoryjoe
Except that I can't actually access the app from that URL, so I wouldn't
consider that equivalent.

Rich apps like Google Wave, however, can be accessed directly in the browser,
as can apps like Gmail and Google Latitude. It's unfortunate that the majority
of these apps are developed by Google, but frameworks like iUI and jqTouch
bring this kind of functionality to the broader web.

I think it's silly to suggest that Apple's app links that redirect to iTunes
are somehow equivalent or equally meaningful as fully functioning
applications.

~~~
pohl
I understand what you're saying, but it strikes me as a very tortured and
flimsy excuse for the App Store's presence in the article.

By your reasoning, there's no URL for GIMP either. Does that make it part of
the URL's death knell? (I wouldn't consider a URL to an Debian repository to
be much different than a URL to an App Store, after all...it doesn't take me
to the program, but it will allow me to configure a special piece of software
to obtain & install the program for me.)

------
Tichy
Maybe the solution is "simply" to build stuff that is so cool that nobody can
afford to lock it out of their platform.

Also, there always seems to be a mass market of people doing what everybody
else does (TV, Facebook, ...?), and lots of companies survive with the few
more curious remaining people.

