[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.