[drewcrawford]

You might think it's a great demonstration if you try it in a desktop browser.

Meanwhile, on actual mobile hardware, the performance is so atrocious it's completely unusable.

No knock on the implementors of course. But the idea that this demo has some deep insight about the performance of native smartphone software is just inaccurate.

http://cl.ly/2O0L3t290s37

[normac]

I didn't mean to compare native mobile apps to web apps (though I see now how it could be read that way). I'm talking about native software in general. I chose smartphones for the comparison because they're the most notorious about being slow, even as their hardware performance approaches what PCs were like just a few years ago. Although even some desktop apps manage to be as janky and dog slow as almost anything from the Win98 era, e.g. iTunes until a couple of years ago. By contrast, the cheapest Third World market smartphone would run Win98 apps blinding fast.

In general there's an arms race between hardware getting faster and native developers getting more and more lazy about efficiency. On the desktop, the hardware is finally winning--it's just too damn fast. Hopefully that will happen with smartphones too.

[drewcrawford]

> Although even some desktop apps manage to be as janky and dog slow as almost anything from the Win98 era, e.g. iTunes until a couple of years ago. By contrast, the cheapest Third World market smartphone would run Win98 apps blinding fast.

It is easy to take potshots at e.g. iTunes, but the real reason software "got worse" is not developers getting lazy. What happened is that expectations for CPU-intensive features rose (memory protection, ASLR, NX, encryption, low-latency audio, high-efficiency codecs, ClearType) while willingness to pay vanished. In Win98 times, you bought your music player from the developer (remember Winamp?) whereas now it comes free with your OS, which is itself probably free. So of course it is all half-assed now, but it's not "lazy" to spend resources on software someone will pay for, and not on software nobody will pay for.

You could absolutely reverse this, but it has nothing to do with native or web technology, and everything to do with changing consumer attitudes about choosing software.

> On the desktop, the hardware is finally winning--it's just too damn fast. Hopefully that will happen with smartphones too.

From 1995 until today, power consumption in desktop processors grew about 5-15x, depending on how exactly you measure. 5-15x more power on mobile devices is simply not an option, unless we have a "new physics" kind of breakthrough in both battery and thermal technology.

[mynameisvlad]

Willingness to pay didn't vanish, it's just that how we pay has changed. No, we don't pay for iTunes, but iTunes is the entry point to the iTunes store, so there's plenty of revenue coming in through that. And while iTunes and OSX are free, the hardware that OSX runs on makes up for that by being more expensive.

[rphlx]

It's getting better (particularly on high-end phones) but single-threaded performance is still nowhere near circa-2013 desktop x86_64 (3.5ghz+ haswell). And it'll probably never catch up due to the thermal and battery life constraints.

[mynameisvlad]

"Never" is a very dangerous word to use considering that just 70 years ago, the ENIAC was created and that about 20 years ago, we were using Pentiums with 150-200MHz. The fact that we've come such a long way in such a short time means we probably have quite a ways to go, too.