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.
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.
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.
Who's whining about the App Store? I'm simply channeling what I hear everywhere else and providing a made-up rationale to get people to rethink how it got to be this way (with a nudge towards looking at the broader context).
While I'll admit that the title is provocative on purpose, the whole post is a big What If? focused on explaining all the crap that's going on around the App Store process — and suggesting that Jobs et al actually made it this way on purpose.
If that's not contentful, I'm curious what you think is?
I think if Opera provided an explanation of how to set up a "Unite server" on your own server, than a lot of this controversy would be moot. That's why Google was so epic with their launch of Wave.
Actually, I do understand that. That's why I said that they were using a "P2P-like" network... Given that it's an alpha, it's pretty awesome that it works as it does, but this deficiency — tying you to an "operaunite.com" domain — is primarily where my criticism lies.
And, that they used such confusing and contradictory terms in their EULA.
Was I cherry-picking things? I tried to be pretty balanced, though that might be impossible given that I was among those laid off.
Things are still apparently being figured out among the remaining management, but that there was no public acknowledgement that the company was out of money seemed irresponsible to me, and needed to be addressed. I think their lack of disclosure affects the real lives of others more than telling the story of what happened and where things are known to be at — especially for a company that deals in security.