> We are witnessing a transition in the way the Internet is used. Mobile content requires a tailor made user experience that is not efficiently delivered by the traditional website model. Although we have grown accustomed to navigating the Web by browsing websites on our PC, consumers are showing an affinity for the App Store model.
Couldn't agree more.
Some of us might dislike this but it's hard not to see where the users are going.
At least in the near future. But I can't foresee a reason for turning back to the browser.
Appstores are also a solution to all the speculations about how to monetize content. If the medium is the message, websites (when interacting with them with the browser) are mostly perceived as free content. Appstores are a different brainframe.
Like I said in other comments I'm just observing the trend. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely happy with this.
The browser is still the killer app where users can control their context that created the momentum behind the web (simple distribution and access to content all through the same controllable interface).
Native apps were once king on the desktop but hardware got fast enough that it was able to handle the multiple media types and demands of a browser. Once mobile gets to 1-2GHz processors 512MB-1GB of RAM you will see a return to the browser on mobile just as on desktop.
Right now mobile devices are like computers in the late nineties and not able to run most things that aren't native to the device. Which actually helps the whole consumer feeling of getting something for their money that others dont' have, thus the AppStore market.
As soon as browser based apps are usable on mobiles many things will return that way.
More immersive games and applications (that take more processing) will always run native on desktop and mobile.
In a short time when everyone is copying the iPhone and doing it fairly well, developers will get frustrated with all the different platforms again and reactualize their love for the browser which is really a distribution channel.
I like this theory, but would propose a variation:
The problem isn't necessarily that mobile devices aren't powerful enough to run browser-based apps. The problem may be that browser-based apps suck for other reasons. There are really only three ways to build one:
Plain old HTML pages over HTTP, with optional CSS. As has been said many times over the years, this is the IBM 3270 model with additional chrome.
Flash. Proprietary. Resource-intensive. No UI standards.
Javascript/AJAX. Better than it could have been, but relatively slow (modern JS interpreters are faster by leaps and bounds, but as usual their deployment rate is limited by the existence of IE), confusing to program, no UI standards, relatively poor tools (witness the recent complaints about Firebug), an evolving diversity of frameworks and practices that will take time to sort out. (The term AJAX is not yet five years old, and this stuff doesn't happen overnight.)
These problems, which have existed for years, have led some to predict that desktop apps would experience a resurgence. By and large, this hasn't really happened, because though many desktop apps are great they still suffer from some big problems: They're hard to install and keep updated (not as hard as they used to be, but the gold standard here is now the iPhone App Store) and they're dangerous (click on a phishing link that installs an app and you'll belong to someone's botnet).
The iPhone platform succeeds because: installation is a breeze, security is not much of an issue (every app gets screened by Apple; trojan-horse apps will, when discovered, be unceremoniously tossed out and their developers blackballed); there's a critical mass of customers that are on the same platform and using the same interface; there's a fairly coherent set of UI standards and practices as demonstrated by Apple's own apps; there's the full power of a native development language, platform, and environment that has been refined for years by dedicated engineers at Apple and NeXt.
I'm still not convinced that the iPhone platform will grow to the point that it poses a serious challenge to the freaking web. But the possibility exists. We'll see how well Palm succeeds in using web standards to sell mobile devices. We'll see how well and how quickly the browser platform continues to evolve.
I agree with many of your points. It is possible downloadable apps (such as in AIR, Silverlight, or just C/C++ apps built via direct code or cross compiled from a higher level language) will gain more traction that are just web enabled on the desktop (twitter apps for instance). It is nice to access the file system and rendering pipelines (which is needed for mobile apps since they are slower) but this also leads to a fragmented development platform.
I do believe that the ability to type in a URL and browser back and forward was a huge "killer app" feature of browsers. Not to mention the dream of combining media types into a sort of super information system with pages of all types of content.
Like you pointed out though, many of the features of the browser on the desktop seem to parallel those on the great iPhone/touch system and screen that has the same echo of that desire for information and media/games/applications. It is really fast and the updates are fairly simple now on the iPhone so it provides the user much of the same experience that the browser did and does.
I think it's hard to make the claim that apps are more popular than websites on the iPhone. Unfortunately, it's hard to find data on overall mobile web traffic (or total web traffic in general), but over 60% of all web traffic from a mobile device comes from the iPhone. My guess, though, is that the number of websites visited since the iPhone's release hugely eclipses the number of apps downloaded.
And I'm not sure you can call the app store a monetization solution either, considering that >90% of all downloads are free apps.
Appstores are also a solution to all the speculations about how to monetize content.
Yes, but the open internet contains many solutions to distribution, and many solutions to monetization. App stores permit only one method of distribution, to climb up the opaque "top apps list".
> But I can't foresee a reason for turning back to the browser.
That, of course, depends on how much the browser changes. Maybe it'll compel MS to adopt HTML 5 (plus extensions) just to cut off some of Apple's air supply.
More accurately titled "I want you to believe Apple will have another iPhone-like hit because I'm long on Apple stock, and I'm pitching my hopes on the Apple tablet rumours finally being correct (it's got to happen someday, hasn't it?)".
I don't agree with the article but I don't think it's fair to accuse the author of trying to sway opinion for the sake of his stock. After all, he probably wouldn't be long on AAPL if he didn't believe what he was writing.
Yeah, I agree. I suppose now that the phone is out we'll be stuck with tablet/netbook rumors for the next half decade until the next big "wouldn't it be cool if Apple made a ____
" comes along.... probably something wearable...
A tablet will simply never replace the Kindle and other readers like it such as thins article suggests. One of the most important feature of the Kindle is that it uses E-Ink! It holds a particular screen and only uses charge to change the text when a "page flip" occurs. A tablet will not come remotely close to matching this kind of machine in battery life or readability (since e-ink is less harsh on the eyes than an lcd).
I think people comparing the Kindle to the mysterious Apple Tablet is getting out of control. If Amazon would just lower the crazy price tag on the kindle it would spread like wild fire.....
I am anxious to see what apple does with tablet tech though. I own a tablet already and if apple can make a better one for cheaper I would consider switching.
Someone needs to keep track of these types of predictions and track how often the author is wrong. It is costless to make big predictions, because rarely do people come back and say "You were wrong." It would be nice if I could search for this author's forecasting performance.
Promises are used like credit, but the tab often goes unpaid because people forget. Politicians, blogs (especially Apple blogs), and talking heads have made an art of exploiting this 'loophole', so it would be nice to have a website where you could track their past performance re: promises and predictions.
Honestly, it just never went anywhere. I'd pick it up today if I wasn't already seeing a lot of success bootstrapping an online retail store. It's often in the back of my mind, though.
In a roundabout way, I suppose monetization is the root problem -- I didn't (and still don't) have the time/money/connections necessary for a Twitter-style 'build it and the money will come' business plan.
I very much doubt it. I see a limited market for this type of device.
Too expensive for the netbook market.
Too big and redundant for the iPhone market.
Too slow & limited for the MacBook Pro market.
So who buys it? PMP fanatics? Tablet fanatics? There's probably a healthy niche market there (ala Macbook Air) but not enough consumers to be a flagship product. All bets are off if Apple releases it at a much lower price point than rumored. A subsidized offering might play but only if Apple can work with carriers who offer reasonable data-only prices.
It seems that "connecting the dots" failed in this article on so many levels...
1. No, I don't consider .99 fart apps as revolutionary improvement of my living room
2. Netbooks and Amazon kindles/other ebook readers comprise one of the most rapidly growing markets, "fad"? Whatever.
3. Skype is already here. And, "free" and "Apple" don't go next to each other in a sentence. Steve will find a way to monetize on your free skype chats.
4. Take any other non-apple phone - see, no carrier exclusivity.. right now, without needing to go to the future and buy new apple gadget.
No really, I think it might live in some homes but revolution? Now come on, there's not a single hint. I think it will be EOLed by 2011.
Yes, but a fad involves a rapidly growing market, whereas a rapidly growing market does not necessarily have to be a fad.
I don't think netbooks are a fad, but I also don't think they will last in the long term. Netbook manufacturers have been cannibalizing their higher-margin products with razor thin margins on their netbooks. This cannot continue if these companies expect to survive.
Not to mention netbooks have been absolutely destroying user experiences all around.
he forgot "fucking expensive" in his list. An iPhone is supported by a massive carrier subsidy. an iTablet would likely cost upwards of $700, seriously limiting its mass-market appeal.
Also, I'm rooting for nokia's next generation n900 tablet series.
The first iPod - look at those stats! So limited! - was $400. So I wouldn't pronounce this one dead out of the gate. (I wouldn't pronounce it a home run either, but with the right marketing, who knows?)
Well as a color e-book reader it would be way better than anything out there now. That is, if apple could manage the distribution correctly. So I can imagine, say, kids in college buying books on their device instead of carrying around heavy sheets of paper.
And what happens when you give it a full-featured version of Safari? Does everyone still use closed App Store apps when you've got Safari on a 10.1" screen?
I know a lot of developers would prefer to create web apps tailored to an iTouch via Cappuccino or whatever, rather than battle the App Store for inclusion. Even Apple started off telling app developers to use Mobile Safari along with standard HTML and Javascript.
It's not suit-logic: I'm genuinely interested. Gruber had a blog post about how PowerBook specs from 2002 are equivalent to iPhone specs, and the Air's got gesture support. And Apple hasn't pre-announced anything, obviously, so everything that everyone's saying is pure speculation.
I have heard countless rumors like this one; about apple developing a tablet.
The question becomes "why?".
I think that very few people would try to make the argument that the iPhone has NOT been a phenomenal success. Lets look at why...
The iPhone is a computer. A pretty one, that can run lots of shiny, pretty apps covered in gradients. When people see it, they are immediately aware of how hip the person wielding it is. Apple took everything great about their desktop computers (pretty, fashionable, stable, simple) and condensed them all into a small, even more fashionable, even more convenient, simple package called an iBook. Coffee shop dwellers wielding an iBook could let their fellow caffeine-solution enjoyers just how hip they were, just how PRODUCTIVE they were with their wonderful macbooks.
Then came the iPhone. Apple took all the wonderful things about their desktops (stability, simplicity, etc.) plus all the wonderful things about their notebooks (simple, fashionable) and combined them into a wonderful even MORE portable packaged called an iPhone. This iPhone could be carried in its owner's pocket. The look-at-me oppurtunities were endless. People could admire the superior technical prowess (complete with white apple logo displayed in stark contrast the black case on the back of the thing) of iPhone users on the train, or on the bus, or on the sidewalk, or in a coffee shop, or the office, or in the kitchen, at a restaurant...ANYWHERE!
A tablet, however...what does this supposedly offer that the iPhone doesn't? It isn't as mobile, meaning less oppurtunites for look-at-me, it would likely run Mac OSX or some derivative of it.. meaning a hefty tax to the apple gods...it would undoubtedly be covered in ultra-high-gloss plastic, meaning that any hopes of replacing something like a panasonic toughbook would be seriously mis-guided.
The only market that apple has not yet tried to dominate, and that it is in any sort of position to even enter, is netbooks.
They had a sort-of false-start called the MacBook Air, something that I think everybody would agree is an example of just how much of a failure apple can produce.
The next itteration of the iPhone is, most certainly, a netbook. The question is whether or not apple is willing to forfeit its position as a luxury item in exchange for increased penetration. A sub-300-dollar netbook is something that is likely NOT in apple's future.
Apple has got something really great going for them right now. People WANT an apple. Macs are seen as something that is, in some way, better than their windows-based counterparts. Even Microsoft seems to be willing to admit this in their latest ads.
In conclusion, apple will NOT be creating a tablet; it simply does not follow with the current trend of their products. If anything, they will produce a $500 netbook that is still seen as "better" than its competitors. If this happens, I predict low market penetration and ultimate failure.
Couldn't agree more.
Some of us might dislike this but it's hard not to see where the users are going.
At least in the near future. But I can't foresee a reason for turning back to the browser.
Appstores are also a solution to all the speculations about how to monetize content. If the medium is the message, websites (when interacting with them with the browser) are mostly perceived as free content. Appstores are a different brainframe.
Like I said in other comments I'm just observing the trend. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely happy with this.