[sorbits]

> So launch a different browser. Not a big deal.

> […]

> As someone who has tried to do both cutting edge native and web iPhone apps, iPhone Safari is a joke compared to iPhone Cocoa

What he is basically saying is developing natively instead of for the web can give a better result, and he would prefer to drop cross-browser compatibility and just have users launch whatever browser he developed the app for.

The question is why develop for the web at all if your apps only run in a certain browser? He seems to make the assumption that while his app can’t run in all browsers, the browser it does run in is available “on all platforms”.

I think he needs to rethink what the purpose is with HTML, semantic markup, and having a standard.

[Qz]

>The question is why develop for the web at all if your apps only run in a certain browser?

This is a mental block. You're thinking about it from a developer's perspective. He's talking about how to make the web better for users.

[sorbits]

I don’t follow — are you saying I don’t understand his critique because I only look at this from a developer’s point of view?

He is seeing “the web” as an easy way to deploy applications. The app store is exactly what he needs, easy way to deploy stuff to users and no cross-browser requirements.

He makes the argument that while the app store is great in that regard, it sucks because he is locked to one mobile phone (OS) — at the same time, he is making the argument that the Cocoa platform is so much better because individual browser vendors did not (and were not allowed to) innovate, he downplays the compatibility problems by saying that users can just launch another browser (and indirectly, buy a new computer / OS if the browser is not available on their platform).

[joe_fishfish]

His point is that it's pretty trivial for a user to change their browser, these days. Changing their phone is more difficult and expensive. Hence, it would be better for users if developers developed their apps for a specific software platform (e.g. Firefox) as opposed to a specific hardware platform (e.g. iPhone).

[Terretta]

It is not trivial for "a user" to change their browser.

Watch this video:

http://uxmag.com/short-news/these-are-your-users-read-and-be...

[joe_fishfish]

Trivial was probably the wrong choice of word. Regardless of most users' lack of knowledge on the subject, it is a much easier (and cheaper) task to change your browser than to upgrade your phone in mid-contract.

I think the real driving force behind web UI improvements, that isn't being picked up on the article, is the open, shared standard. If there was a cool new piece of functionality in, say, Opera, that allowed users to instantly buy whatever it was they were vaguely thinking of or something genuinely revolutionary, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the web unless it was backed by an open standard. This is largely due to the reason shown by your video - most users wouldn't know how to go about installing a new browser to take advantage of the functionality.

However if the standard behind the new super-fun-happy-wow web technology is shared, then it can spread across a majority of the web-using population comparatively quickly, because other browser makers will include an implementation of it within their browsers. If a browser is open-sourced under a BSD-type licence, this technology spread can happen even faster.

[mclin]

Maybe it just needs simplification. How about a system to save sites as 'Apps' that open in the appropriate browser.