Gmail Sidesteps the App Store(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
Gmail Sidesteps the App Store
http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/22424/?nlid=1952&a=f
39 comments
"Instant Springboard real estate"
You can easily add web apps or pages to the iPhones home screen, it's the button right below "bookmark". You even get a nice icon if it specified correctly using the appropriate HTML5
You can easily add web apps or pages to the iPhones home screen, it's the button right below "bookmark". You even get a nice icon if it specified correctly using the appropriate HTML5
"Easily", but not "instantly".
If you download an app, it goes to your Springboard till you remove it. If you visit a web page, it doesn't go to your Springboard till you take action and bookmark it. But yes, the "apple-touch-icon" is a nice touch.
If you download an app, it goes to your Springboard till you remove it. If you visit a web page, it doesn't go to your Springboard till you take action and bookmark it. But yes, the "apple-touch-icon" is a nice touch.
You're adding weight to actions and ignoring weight on other actions. "Go to app sore, find app, click 'buy', enter password" isn't really any simpler than "Go to URL, click '+', click 'add to home screen'".
Neither is "instant", though the App store process is streamlined to a specific purpose.
Neither is "instant", though the App store process is streamlined to a specific purpose.
The difference is that you can visit a website without adding it to your Springboard. You can't try an app, however, without adding it to your Springboard. I'm weighing requirements vs. options.
Isn't this, rich web apps, what Steve Jobs originally said should happen when asked why an SDK/third party native apps weren't going to be made available?
The irony struck me as well. Jobs didn't want to do native apps for many of the reasons we've already seen (management complains, quality control issues). He wanted web apps.
People moaned.
Then a web app is called 'sidestepping' the app store?!
I think the iPhone does need an app store, at the end of the day, but this headline was just to rich.
People moaned.
Then a web app is called 'sidestepping' the app store?!
I think the iPhone does need an app store, at the end of the day, but this headline was just to rich.
The author seems to have a very poor understanding of the iPhone ecosystem. That, or he is trying to draw in more readers with a sneaky headline.
I think Google is being smart here. Many of the "apps" on the app store would be better served as web services anyways.
I think Google is being smart here. Many of the "apps" on the app store would be better served as web services anyways.
Also interesting to note that this sort of rich web app is the way Palm Pre development is (supposedly) going to work...
steve jobs never said that web apps were a replacement for real third-party apps. in 2007 he said that web apps are what we've got now, and then he failed to comment at all on any upcoming sdk, because apple never talks about unreleased products.
Yes he did. He said:
> “Developers and users alike are going to be very surprised and pleased at how great these applications look and work on iPhone,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Our innovative approach, using Web 2.0-based standards, lets developers create amazing new applications while keeping the iPhone secure and reliable.”
And the rest of the press release said:
> “Developers can create Web 2.0 applications which look and behave just like the applications built into iPhone, and which can seamlessly access iPhone’s services, [...]”
> “Web 2.0-based applications are being embraced by leading developers because they are far more interactive and responsive than traditional web applications, and can be easily distributed over the Internet and painlessly updated by simply changing the code on the developers’ own servers. The modern web standards also provide secure data access and transactions, like those used with Amazon.com or online banking.”
> “Developers and users alike are going to be very surprised and pleased at how great these applications look and work on iPhone,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Our innovative approach, using Web 2.0-based standards, lets developers create amazing new applications while keeping the iPhone secure and reliable.”
And the rest of the press release said:
> “Developers can create Web 2.0 applications which look and behave just like the applications built into iPhone, and which can seamlessly access iPhone’s services, [...]”
> “Web 2.0-based applications are being embraced by leading developers because they are far more interactive and responsive than traditional web applications, and can be easily distributed over the Internet and painlessly updated by simply changing the code on the developers’ own servers. The modern web standards also provide secure data access and transactions, like those used with Amazon.com or online banking.”
nowhere in there does it say that there will never be a native-app sdk. you are putting words in his mouth.
Nice jujitsu there. You previously wrote "steve jobs never said that web apps were a replacement for real third-party apps." jacobolus pointed out several places where Jobs unambiguously drew comparisons between web apps and native apps. Now it's "nowhere in there does it say that there will never be a native-app sdk."
You're right in that Jobs clearly was not ruling out native apps. But his comments pretty clearly imply that web apps on iPhone make native apps unnecessary.
You're right in that Jobs clearly was not ruling out native apps. But his comments pretty clearly imply that web apps on iPhone make native apps unnecessary.
jobs was selling what he had available at the moment, which only makes sense. yes, a lot of people were disappointed that he didn't announce a true sdk at the time, but i'm pretty sure it was because it wasn't anywhere near ready yet.
jobs didn't hint around that true sdk-style apps were coming, because apple never talks about unreleased products, unless absolutely forced to. the introduction of the iphone itself was one of only a very few times where this happened. if apple hadn't preannounced the iphone, the story would have gotten out anyway, due to fcc filings.
the oft-repeated refrain that "jobs said web apps were good enough" is mean-spirited and wrong. i suppose it's so often repeated because people felt he was being deceitful or patronizing at wwdc 2007, when web apps were introduced. that's one way to interpret it. i choose a different one: apple is secretive. you can claim it's not the best tactic, but it's what apple does. i for one thing the positives of that policy outweigh the negatives.
jobs didn't hint around that true sdk-style apps were coming, because apple never talks about unreleased products, unless absolutely forced to. the introduction of the iphone itself was one of only a very few times where this happened. if apple hadn't preannounced the iphone, the story would have gotten out anyway, due to fcc filings.
the oft-repeated refrain that "jobs said web apps were good enough" is mean-spirited and wrong. i suppose it's so often repeated because people felt he was being deceitful or patronizing at wwdc 2007, when web apps were introduced. that's one way to interpret it. i choose a different one: apple is secretive. you can claim it's not the best tactic, but it's what apple does. i for one thing the positives of that policy outweigh the negatives.
> jobs was selling what he had available at the moment, which only makes sense.<
What's your point? No one in this thread ever suggested otherwise.
> the oft-repeated refrain that "jobs said web apps were good enough" is mean-spirited and wrong. i suppose it's so often repeated because people felt he was being deceitful or patronizing at wwdc 2007, <
He did say that, and he was being patronizing. Many (most?) informed observers were able to figure out that Apple would probably allow native apps as soon as they were ready, and that the official Apple line was a load of bull.
Also, how is it mean spirited? It's neither malicious nor petty to simply call a spade a spade.
What's your point? No one in this thread ever suggested otherwise.
> the oft-repeated refrain that "jobs said web apps were good enough" is mean-spirited and wrong. i suppose it's so often repeated because people felt he was being deceitful or patronizing at wwdc 2007, <
He did say that, and he was being patronizing. Many (most?) informed observers were able to figure out that Apple would probably allow native apps as soon as they were ready, and that the official Apple line was a load of bull.
Also, how is it mean spirited? It's neither malicious nor petty to simply call a spade a spade.
That's what I thought too. When he annouced that everybody was up in arms and now, mobile development is the way to go. I find that a bit ironic.
I'd say Google have come up with 'a really sweet solution' here.
So this newfangled thing called web apps is going to offset the App Store, is that it?
The author of the article assumes that the App Store is a problem to iPhone developers. It is not, it's a solution — one mobile and other developers have been waiting for several years.
The author of the article assumes that the App Store is a problem to iPhone developers. It is not, it's a solution — one mobile and other developers have been waiting for several years.
While HTML5 storage is good, I think the main advantage of native apps is access to hardware. Projects like Phonegap ( http://phonegap.com/ ) help you write a native app that is a website with special JS-based access to the hardware. However, if Phonegap were to release a free browser like BigFive Apps http://www.big5apps.com/ then I think they could build a more powerful web platform for the iphone and ipod that could be a great place to advertise a "web" version of your app.
and the security implications of that would be insane...
The main browser would be subject to the same security as any native app, so I'm not sure how the security issues would be any different than a native application.
because native applications are usually installed by choice.
With a browser the implication (of the poster) is you could browse anywhere. Which obviously is a security risk because any page you visit has access to the Iphone API.
Would you visit a site that had that kind of access in your desktop browser?
With a browser the implication (of the poster) is you could browse anywhere. Which obviously is a security risk because any page you visit has access to the Iphone API.
Would you visit a site that had that kind of access in your desktop browser?
20% of the internet still does it every day with IE6...
It's not as bad as it sounds (though I gave you an upvote). You'd just have to limit the access to browser apps that have been "installed" to the home screen. I'm sure people would go nuts, but I think it could be done relatively safely.
Right, I should have said this. My point was not a browser that replaces Safari, but something that is more of a app where you could find a list of website specifically targeted to the platform.
So, essentially, an App appstore - that sounds like a great idea.
TBH I did assume that was what you meant; but it was worth making the point :)
TBH I did assume that was what you meant; but it was worth making the point :)
[deleted]
yeh fair point. But, still, it would make me nervous to use it.
I'm totally confused. Doesn't this mean that Gmail only works when you're online? Which means... higher battery usage than a native email client, higher bandwidth usage, slower response time, doesn't work in airplanes, etc.?
With offline storage it can work much like offline gmail using Gears on the desktop. That's more or less the point.
Google around for HTML5 and offline storage.
Google around for HTML5 and offline storage.
That is the theory. Does it actually work on the iPhone/iPod touch when there is no connection?
Yes.
With the requisite warnings about "no connection present" duly dismissed (this is an iPod Touch 2.0, so no AT&T network backstopping it either), I can browse my GMail inbox, read messages, make changes, and perform seemingly any "normal" mail function all without a connection. Obviously will have to connect at some point for it to be useful, but can do everything but send/receive new messages while away from a network connection.
With the requisite warnings about "no connection present" duly dismissed (this is an iPod Touch 2.0, so no AT&T network backstopping it either), I can browse my GMail inbox, read messages, make changes, and perform seemingly any "normal" mail function all without a connection. Obviously will have to connect at some point for it to be useful, but can do everything but send/receive new messages while away from a network connection.
What am I, your personal Apple genius? Google it man! (Hint, try looking at the Google announcement of the new Gmail interface for the iPhone)
The article didn't seem to say where in the app they were actually using Canvas -- anyone have any idea?
According to the official Gmail blog:
"The HTML5 canvas tag is used to render the progress spinner without the overhead of downloading animated GIFs to the device."
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-mobile-gmail-exper...
"The HTML5 canvas tag is used to render the progress spinner without the overhead of downloading animated GIFs to the device."
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-mobile-gmail-exper...
Oh, jeez, maybe it's just me but that seems like technology for technology's sake. A spinner can be compressed to, what, 1k or so? I guess they should have drawn the Google logo with canvas, too.
The startup time is way too slow: the built-in Mail app shows my inbox almost instantly, but -- with 5 bars of 3G! -- almost 20 seconds elapse between the time I click the Gmail bookmark on the Springboard and the time my inbox appears.
The emphasis this article places on a nonexistent battle between the App Store and web apps is misleading.
Google didn't "sidestep" the App Store. Google took advantage of the web platform Apple provides because that platform makes more sense.
Web apps do miss a few things, though:
I don't mean to imply it makes sense to port every web app over, but the platforms are quite different, and those differences should probably not be understated.