That's because they're using Javascript to render a lot of stuff. iOS doesn't support position:fixed, doesn't support div scrolling (although I think this is being fixed in iOS5) so the common thing to do is to hack together a javascript shim.
I think that's the wrong approach. Let the browser do the things it does well. Use javascript to enhance the browsing experience, not to fill holes.
We're undergoing a shift in web design where the purpose is to make web applications look like native applications. I think in a couple of years we'll see a rejection of this and instead have web applications which look like websites but have the capabilities of native applications.
Let scrolling work the way it's worked since the web was created. Instead of hacking a page flip animation, precache the next page. Instead of capturing every click event, use cache.manifest and smart pre-caching to let your app look like a single page app even though it's not.
Huh? Safari on iOS supports div scrolling just fine (at least, on my iPad with 4.3.3). I know it worked in earlier iOS 4 revisions on an iPhone, as well.
Do these web apps work offline after you've visited/logged in and purchased content? One of the perks of my iPad native apps is that I can do things like read ebooks and play games when offline.
One of the biggest obstacles for marketing a web app is breaking the notion that you must be online to use it. If people on HN think that web sites can't be used offline, what must the common end user think?
While I see, and to some extent agree with, your point, you could look at it another way. Sure there will be some users who are in the middle, knowledgeable enough to think you have to be online to use it (and maybe they are the biggest group, I've no idea), but there are also others who don't actually get that far in thinking.
I told my Dad to switch from the FT app to the FT webapp when it came out a couple of months back, which he did - hee doesn't know it's a webapp, he doesn't care. As far as he is concerned, after setting it up, he clicks the FT logo, it gets the news from the internet, and he can read it on his device. Is it coming through a browser or a different piece of software? Who cares.
This article is a bit sensationalist; Amazon demoed their Kindle web app back in December when the Chrome Web Store was launching; before Apple announced the policy in question. It's not an "iPad web app", it's a WebKit web app.
I agree, people are making it look like these applications are used to outsmart Apple or something. While in fact when the iPhone was originally announced Steve Jobs encouraged webapps, as there was no native SDK available yet. Sure, Apple likes their 30%, but it's not like they are trying to prevent you from running webapps. I think with some high-profile examples people will start to get used more to fancy offline capable apps straight from the web. That might make the whole app store hurdle look a little smaller.
"Apple's app policies" pretty much state if you play in our ecosystem, you do so entirely to keep it holistic. Of course they are a business and these policies ensure that their "walled garden" is maintained, much in the same way Amazon's ebook DRM does for them.
RDIO did the smart thing and adopted in-app purchasing w/ a surcharge if you do it in-app. The intention seems to be "pay for the convenience" as well as making sure their ARPU is intact regardless of method.
That being said: has anyone calculated what the per-transaction overhead would be if a developer wanted to institute in-app purchasing themselves? Considering Apple handles CC processing, chargebacks, customer service on the purchase, verification, etc?
It seems likely that the majority of the industry will follow suit, particularly when they realise that no one else is willing to give Apple such a large share of their profits for simply hosting their apps.
But Apple is doing more than "simply hosting their app" they are facilitating payments as well.
As well, I've venture to say that for the publisers, like FT, who are spurning Apple - they already have fulfillment companies to take care of their payments, customer service etc. That 30% is truly hosting the app and app store promotion. Not to say that isn't valuable, but its certainly too big a chunk.
As Gruber points out, Apple have gone out of their way to make this possible, right down to creating a device where an HTML5 app can have its own homescreen button and full-screen experience.
I think Apple wins when people make HTML5 apps that run everywhere. Unlike hte “old” Apple, the Apple is winning on price and obviously people like its design choices. At this point, apps that lock people down into the Apple ecosystem are a nice-to-have for Apple, but if everything is cross-platform, Apple still wins. The only way they lose is if somebody invents a “killer app” that is locked into another platform.
So allowing or even encouraging HTML5 apps is a great defensive move for the leader to make.
It's like with their iTunes Music Store selling DRM'd AAC tracks which "infest" users' libraries... Apple doesn't care that you rip your CDs (an iMac commercial from 2000 used the tagline "Rip. Mix. Burn"), or even if you pirate them.
However, with Android rising everywhere, and Google spending billions on developing Chrome, ChromeOS and Android HTML5 capabilities, they may feel it's dangerous to cede the playing field of native apps.
HTML5 apps can and will exist for iOS devices, but I posit they will always have a shittier experience than native, and some apps will never be possible as HTML5 only.
Currently I find web apps have better experience on iOS than Android: you can add them on the home screen like other apps, they can have icons and splash screens, you can make them really look like native apps, as Amazon did here.
It always stroke me as strange that Google didn't do anything like that on Android and honestly it looks like everybody is doing better mobile web apps than Google these days (Amazon, Twitter, even Facebook), which is pretty surprising as well.
One note: iTunes music files haven't had DRM anymore since 2009.
You can add links to webpages directly to a homescreen in Android. They look like a native app except for the address bar. Not as slick as iOS, but it's "OK".
Android acts as an independent company within Google. I've always got the impression that Andy Rubin doesn't have the same level of web-first mentality that Page and Brin have.
I disagree about the mobile web apps though. I think the Google+ (and formerly Google Buzz) web app is just as good as the counterparts. I actually don't like the Twitter mobile app too much. If I click an outside link to a Tweet why in the world aren't you rendering it on the server side?
I don't think evade as in tax evasion is the right word nor circumvent more like bypass.
Honestly, Apple should come to their senses on subscription content and just lower their take to something like 10% because they have make no significant contributions to facilitate the sale. They clearly don't get publishing as well as Amazon.
24 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.8 ms ] threadI think that's the wrong approach. Let the browser do the things it does well. Use javascript to enhance the browsing experience, not to fill holes.
We're undergoing a shift in web design where the purpose is to make web applications look like native applications. I think in a couple of years we'll see a rejection of this and instead have web applications which look like websites but have the capabilities of native applications.
Let scrolling work the way it's worked since the web was created. Instead of hacking a page flip animation, precache the next page. Instead of capturing every click event, use cache.manifest and smart pre-caching to let your app look like a single page app even though it's not.
Huh? Safari on iOS supports div scrolling just fine (at least, on my iPad with 4.3.3). I know it worked in earlier iOS 4 revisions on an iPhone, as well.
One of the biggest obstacles for marketing a web app is breaking the notion that you must be online to use it. If people on HN think that web sites can't be used offline, what must the common end user think?
[1]http://diveintohtml5.org/offline.html
I told my Dad to switch from the FT app to the FT webapp when it came out a couple of months back, which he did - hee doesn't know it's a webapp, he doesn't care. As far as he is concerned, after setting it up, he clicks the FT logo, it gets the news from the internet, and he can read it on his device. Is it coming through a browser or a different piece of software? Who cares.
RDIO did the smart thing and adopted in-app purchasing w/ a surcharge if you do it in-app. The intention seems to be "pay for the convenience" as well as making sure their ARPU is intact regardless of method.
That being said: has anyone calculated what the per-transaction overhead would be if a developer wanted to institute in-app purchasing themselves? Considering Apple handles CC processing, chargebacks, customer service on the purchase, verification, etc?
But Apple is doing more than "simply hosting their app" they are facilitating payments as well.
I think Apple wins when people make HTML5 apps that run everywhere. Unlike hte “old” Apple, the Apple is winning on price and obviously people like its design choices. At this point, apps that lock people down into the Apple ecosystem are a nice-to-have for Apple, but if everything is cross-platform, Apple still wins. The only way they lose is if somebody invents a “killer app” that is locked into another platform.
So allowing or even encouraging HTML5 apps is a great defensive move for the leader to make.
However, with Android rising everywhere, and Google spending billions on developing Chrome, ChromeOS and Android HTML5 capabilities, they may feel it's dangerous to cede the playing field of native apps.
HTML5 apps can and will exist for iOS devices, but I posit they will always have a shittier experience than native, and some apps will never be possible as HTML5 only.
It always stroke me as strange that Google didn't do anything like that on Android and honestly it looks like everybody is doing better mobile web apps than Google these days (Amazon, Twitter, even Facebook), which is pretty surprising as well.
One note: iTunes music files haven't had DRM anymore since 2009.
I disagree about the mobile web apps though. I think the Google+ (and formerly Google Buzz) web app is just as good as the counterparts. I actually don't like the Twitter mobile app too much. If I click an outside link to a Tweet why in the world aren't you rendering it on the server side?
Honestly, Apple should come to their senses on subscription content and just lower their take to something like 10% because they have make no significant contributions to facilitate the sale. They clearly don't get publishing as well as Amazon.