[dstein]

I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps. I've seen this coming a mile away. Apple almost lost a big portion of its development community 2 years ago with that whole 3rd party development platform issue. Apple relented, and they are now turning a different crank with the big subscription tax. They are playing a game of monopoly here. It's the same kind of game Microsoft played in the 1990's and by attrition have lost to the Linux/OSS movement.

Apple currently holds one trump card with Safari on IOS devices though. By restricting HTML5 Audio controls, and rendering engine speed, it prevents games and music web apps from being viable inside the browser.

[crag]

What? MS lost to linux? The server (enterprise) market is the ONLY area where linux competes head-to-head with MS (or anyone really). And even in Enterprise there are plenty of MS shops.

If you bring up the fabled "linux desktop" I'm gonna start laughing. Though I am impressed at what the folks at Ubuntu are doing.

Also, when the iphone was first released Apple had no developer kit (API's). You could download guidelines on how to write a proper web app for the phone. But developers barked (and why not - look at the result) and here we are.

Actually Apple sort of fell into the app markets. They got damn lucky. Of if you want to believe that Steve Job's is divine, he's manipulated the whole transition from web app => dev kit => app store.

I'm glad to see us move fill circle. But you know we haven't. You could always design specific web apps for ios. Just log into the (free) Safari dev center and download the guild lines. How do you think smaller companies who can't afford a distribution agreement with Apple (did you know you can privately distribute your own apps? Of course you have to pay.. ;) ) did it? We wrote the apps in html5/js/css3 (based specifically on Safari) and host them on our own network (intranet & vpn).

[dstein]

Microsoft long ago lost the mindset of developers. It's been a long time since I've met someone doing Windows-desktop software. All innovation appears to be happening outside of Microsoft technologies. MS fought for years (using IE) to make it as difficult as possible to build web applications and I'll spit up my milk if developers fall for it again by developing HTML/JS-based Windows 8 apps.

[crag]

Ok I agree with that. Developers aren't doing any "new" development on Windows. It's all maintenance and release "upgrades" to generate revenue. And MS itself is doing this too (look at Office).

[Steko]

"The server (enterprise) market is the ONLY area where linux competes head-to-head with MS (or anyone really)."

Linux as Android is killing MS in mobile.

[colinplamondon]

Except that web apps are still awful user experiences compared to native mobile apps.

The work to do a web app even barely comparable to a native app, in terms of responsiveness, is outrageously larger than just firing up Xcode.

I've only ever used two web apps that don't suck- Asana and Flowdock.

[astrodust]

How did they lose a big portion of its development community? Attendance at WWDC was record-breaking, and that's a developer-focused conference. The number of apps is still growing. The sales of the devices are still growing.

What I think you mean is they lost a big portion of their early adopter community, and that's not the same thing as what sustains them.

[mattmanser]

We're really nowhere near it at all. The basic economics is that the app market and the exposure from actually being in the app market is just far too massive for that to happen.

I'm also amazed at how often the myth that one day we'll all be using really crappy Html5 apps continues. Html5 compared to native apps done by an average developer just plain sucks, no amount of 'HTML5 web apps == AWESOME!' pretending and wishing will ever change that.

We'll have HTML6 in, what, 2025 maybe? So maybe all the wishes will come true then.

[Stormbringer]

The native apps done by average developers also suck.

Going to HTML as your presentation layer doesn't suddenly and magically increase (or decrease) the sucktitude factor of the developers involved.

[masklinn]

> The native apps done by average developers also suck.

The difference is that they suck fast, instead of sucking slow.

[crag]

You right. But you can't think of the html5 app as a device app. That's comparing apples to oranges. It's a web page, designed specify for IOS (Safari/Webkit).

BUT for companies who don't have the resources (or don't want them) is a nice way to get into the ios market. Of course, if you serious you better roll out xcode.

But there are plenty of applications where the html5 wep app makes sense. Like a company hosting it on their intranet (we do.. marketing data mostly). FT (print media) is another. Actually, I bet FT they had an easier time writing the web app then they did their ios app (which sucked.. I had it). And I wonder why the NYT, WSJ (etc, etc) haven't dropped their ambitions and move to an html5 web app.

As a side note.. most of the print media company apps suck. I mean they are just terrible. I can think of only a few that are ok: USA Today, the Economist. I mean just look at the reviews of the NYT app. It's a joke. Want a bigger joke, go look at the Ars Technica app. My god.. a tech journal can't even get it right.

[cageface]

Exposure in the app market only matters if you happen to crack into the top 25.

[Steko]

Or if someone ever searches for something like your app which happens sometimes:

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=iphone%20business%2...

Those are google searches but the same thing is undoutedly happening thousands of times a day in iTunes/App Store.

[cageface]

All that gets you is a place on page 27 of a list of search results.

[MatthewPhillips]

Fixed it for you to include web apps, just for 1 subset of business apps:

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=iphone%20business%2...

[Stormbringer]

It isn't a big tax that is suddenly something new.

What it is, is a way to prevent developers trying to rort the system and doing an end run around their fee structure.

When this first came out, the ones screaming the loudest were the guys who had "free" apps ($0 to Apple) who then built into their apps an "okay, you've been using it for 5 minutes, now pay us $3 ($0 to Apple)" 'one-off subscription'.

E.g. you used to be able to get all the benefits of a paid app without paying Apple anything, simply by relabelling the "paid" app as an app with a "one-off subscription".

Apple closed that loop-hole. Hence one particular side of the screaming. You don't actually need to ascribe these actions to some kind of evil Microsoftian conspiracy, it's jsut closing a loophole that some people were using to cheat the system.

The other side of this coin is the arrangements between authors and publishers, where the authors have had a long time 70% of net agreement. If the author gets 70% and Apple gets 30%... this leaves 0% for the middle-man. So they weren't happy.

[dstein]

You're forgetting that there is no other way to sell software or content on an iOS device. You can't circumvent the App Store unless you tell your customers to crack their devices and use Cydia.

I would be completely fine with Apple's App Store restrictions if iOS devices weren't locked down like they are. Even Microsoft never dreamed of the kind of Orwellian nightmare that Apple is spinning around the computing industry.

[Stormbringer]

Did you even read the article? It contradicts your first sentence. Also, your initial premise that you are somehow more aware of my memory system than I am... is... deeply flawed.

If you want to reframe the debate in terms of Apple is evil, therefore everything they do, say or think is evil, by all means go and do that. (And they say the fanboys are the ones suffering from a reality distortion field...) But this isn't really the place. I'm sure you can find large numbers of people willing to agree with you though.

On the off chance that you can't find any thread on Hacker News or elsewhere on the Internet that fit that theme... perhaps you should start your own? You could write a blog post about how it is all part of some conspiracy. Or if you're really lazy you could write a top ten list... just pick any ten random Apple news items, there's bound to be someone slagging them off for each of them.

Then you just post that link to Hacker News, you'll get guaranteed upvotes, it will make the front page... and Ta Da!!! "Apple = evil conspiracy" comments will be on topic in that thread! Hooray!

[glhaynes]

It's the same kind of game Microsoft played in the 1990's and by attrition have lost to the Linux/OSS movement.

It doesn't seem to me like it's attrition-due-to-Microsoft's-practices that have led to their downfall ... it's because of the advantages of free / open-source on the back end and because of other-platform (web/mobile) disruption on the front end.

[zmonkeyz]

Initially this is what Apple was pushing early on with the IPhone. So many people wanted to go native and the beast known as the App Store was born.

[zzleeper]

[Meta]

Funny to see that your post has been grayed out, even though it's logical and makes a point. I would expect people who disagree to reply instead of downvoting. And yes, even though your topic is controversial, it passes the guidelines criteria.

[dstein]

Yeah if anyone can point out why Apple will be able to continue it's dominance over mobile apps with a 30% tax I'd really like to hear why.

[ThomPete]

Because their platform is superior to everything else out there. Because mobile apps is not even close to providing proper user experience.

People expect snappy as hell execution on the iOS, the actual flow of the app is often more important than the looks. And in my experience the web apps just aren't there yet.

Apple make no money on the app store it more or less goes to operations. You can call it a tax or you can be honest and call it what it is. The price of keeping a well structured market place.

[dstein]

Valid points, but the subscription tax is on top of application delivery fees. That's going too far, and I think we're about to see a watershed event where nearly all publishers begin to flee the App Store. Watch it happen.

[ThomPete]

But here is the question.

Do people buy the iPad because of the magazines or the magazines because of the iPad?

In other words. Does it really make a difference if they leave? Is that really anything to worry about? Will that really mean the end of native apps?

Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around.

[recoiledsnake]

>Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around.

Won't their value diminish if there no apps and no content to subscribe to, except through Safari? Why do you think Jobs advertizes 400K apps with a tile of icons on screen?

What if Netflix and Kindle were yanked on June 30? Many people buy iDevices just to access those. Will be interesting June 30th

[guelo]

If FT fans expect snappy iOS apps and all they can get is a substandard HTML app don't you think they'll considering ditching iOS when their contract is up?

[recoiledsnake]

Would be interesting if FT put a FAQ on a page for mobile apps regarding why there's no iOS version.

[sid0]

Because their platform is superior to everything else out there.

This seems like opinion presented as fact. I've used iOS and currently own an Android phone, and there's no doubt in my mind that the Android UX is miles ahead of the iOS UX. Of course, I include things like a browser with sync to desktop (Firefox) in my definition of UX, since things like that affect the experience I have while using the product quite a bit.

[ThomPete]

When I talk about the platform I am talking about the whole lot. The ecosystem that ties it all together. Surely you won't argue that Google makes more money on mobile ecosystem than apple does on theirs.

[sid0]

Why does a corporation I have no stock in making more money than another corporation I have no stock in make the platform superior?

[biafra]

Or what about a browser that you do not have to scroll sideways to read anything?

It amazes me that the current (iOS5 SDK Simulator) browser still is unable to do reflow of text.

At least it can open links in the background now. Thank god!

[drivebyacct2]

Sadly, you will find that HN tends to be very anti-Android from a UI perspective. Haven't you noticed the praise of the notification system and other changes to iOS that have existed in Android for ages. Or the obsession with iMessage despite the existence of Google Voice.

At one point in time, iOS was prettier than Android. Too few HNers have actually used Froyo or Gingerbread to understand the UI improvements that have occurred and too many use Android as a dev platform or played with a phone in a store to understand the power of actual multitasking or the power of the back button.

[Steko]

Contrary to what you think I'd guess most HNers have some experience with 'actual multitasking' on real computers. Most of them understand that it's easier to enable it fully then to enable it in a highly limited fashion. Most of them understand that "actual multitasking" is not the holy grail of computing. Most of them realize that Apple has disabled "actual multitasking" in favor of superior battery life. And most of them do have experience with Froyo or Gingerbread phones since ~75% of android phones are running Froyo plus.

[MrScruff]

Sadly, you will find that HN tends to be very anti-Android from a UI perspective.

I read comments like this a lot, and I don't really understand them. There is no such thing as HN, just a bunch of people posting with differing opinions - including yourself. There are plenty of Android die hards here just as there are Apple/iOS ones.

Also, people who post on HN tend to be passionate consumers and producers of technology. It's silly to pretend they don't understand the trade offs of permitting preemptive multitasking on a mobile device or the use of a back button.

[recoiledsnake]

Consumers don't know and don't care about it until it affects them. Apple has been picking on the small guys like Readability and Flow reader. https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx while silently approving updates to Kindle and Netflix.

Let them go after Netflix and Kindle with the shakedown (June 30th is the deadline).

[matwood]

Let them go after Netflix and Kindle with the shakedown (June 30th is the deadline).

What happens to the big boys will be telling. I don't think 30% across the board is going to stay. For a small developer the 30% is probably worth it to get into the store, a small amount of visibility, payment processing, and quick customer access.

For the big content providers like NF, HBOGO, WSJ, NYT, Kindle, etc... who already spend huge amounts of money on payment systems, advertising and support the 30% is an additional middle man that provides little actual value. I think at least for the big content providers Apple will blink because at the end of the day Apple needs content more than the content needs them.

[caf]

It's entirely possible that they've already cut a deal with these guys... commercial-in-confidence, of course.

[rimantas]

> It's the same kind of game Microsoft played in the 1990's > and by attrition have lost to the Linux/OSS movement.

Meanwhile web browsing from iDevices surpassed that from Linux…

[Anechoic]

>I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps

Isn't this pretty much what Apple wanted in the first place?

[blinkingled]

No. It just meant that they did not have the native application development SDK and the associated App Store infrastructure ready that time. Saying "who needs native apps when there is the Web" up until releasing the native App Store is typical of Apple - "who wants to watch video on small screen", "People don't read anymore" etc. come to mind.

[crag]

Actually you have evidence of that? Cause I don't believe that for a second. I was a member of the ADC at that time. And I don't remember seeing ANYTHING about a iphone (this was before it was renamed to ios) dev kit.

But my email was full of guidelines to create web apps for the phone. What I think happened is that (at that time) Apple wanted Mac developers to make iphone apps, badly. And mac dev's wanted to do it natively. A half a year later, I see the beta of the dev kit.

I doubt Apple imagined the app store market at that time. And like most grand success stories, there was a lot of luck involved.

[blinkingled]

Evidence of what? You seem to concur that native sdk and app store did not exist at the time when Apple said Web Apps are good enough.

Sure they didn't wanted to lose developer attention and had to keep them engaged with web apps etc. until they figured out the strategy on native development and the app store.

And I can't believe that Apple had totally closed the door or hadn't thought about native apps at all when they initially released the iPhone - there wasn't any sensible reason not to - it wasn't a new thing, at least some of the phone platforms had native apps and there were even App Stores before that. It was just a matter of time.

[Anechoic]

Looking at the 2007 WWDC press release, it looks like Web apps was they way Apple seriously wanted to go: "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, including making a phone call, sending an email and displaying a location in Google Maps." If nothing else, it gave them a much larger potential developer base than relying on native development alone and by sticking to standards it insures that the iPhone would always have a place in the table.

[wmf]

I don't think Apple ever liked Web apps; they just talked about it until the real SDK was ready.

[Anechoic]

To the downvoters: this is what I'm talking about: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html

[recoiledsnake]

No, that's what Apple says, to placate users demanding Flash support.

[scrod]

>By restricting HTML5 Audio controls, and rendering engine speed, it prevents games and music web apps from being viable inside the browser.

It must be frustrating for the WebKit team when their engineering advancements are taken for granted and attributed to Chrome — the perceived bastion of web freedom — while they themselves are simultaneously criticized for assisting in a conspiracy against "the web" whenever they fail to make enough cutting-edge performance improvements.

[patrickaljord]

> It must be frustrating for the WebKit team when their engineering advancements are taken for granted and attributed to Chrome

The chrome team makes more commits than the Apple webkit team. I know number of commits don't mean much but the chrome team is mostly reponsible for adding websocket, the file api, web workers and more. Also don't forget webkit itself is based on KDE's KHTML.

[scrod]

> but the chrome team is mostly reponsible for adding websocket, the file api, web workers...

Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser and HTML5-compliant rendering engine then?

By your logic, Chrome is essentially KHTML + HTML5-fanboy-features. I guess that must mean Apple has been shipping a 2002-era build of Konquerer with each copy of Mac OS X then, huh? Because clearly WebKit itself is so minimal in comparison to the rest of Chrome as to be positively technologically inconsequential.

I hope you can see the irony of your remark in light of the original point I was making.

[patrickaljord]

> Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser and HTML5-compliant rendering engine then?

Strawman, I never said the Chrome team deserved all the credit, or that KHTML did for that matter. All I meant was that the WebKit team didn't deserve all the credit as it's clearly a shared effort between the three of them, not to mention Nokia and others. Also my initial comment was answering a post mentioning HTML5 features.

[recoiledsnake]

>Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser

Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code and then had to release their code because it was GPL. I remember reading about a complaint from the KHTML that Apple was releasing the code as a big blob and this was hindering KHTML integration.

[scrod]

> Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code...

WebKit has vastly evolved from the original KHTML library, to the point of being almost an entirely different product. The KHTML team has been pulling changes from WebKit (http://trac.webkit.org/browser) for many years now.

[cooldeal]

Of course a product would evolve in 9 years, that doesn't mean that the credit for the full browser goes to Apple. If so, then why did they have to fork KHTML in the first place? Of course, KHTML benefited too, because of the LGPL/GPL licensing, but that doesn't change facts now.

Instructive link, Apple praising KHTML and reasoning why they used it http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104197092318639&...

So, saying that Google took Apple's full browser is not really true, Chrome mostly took Webcore, they have their own JS engine and their own UI chrome(!), and WebCore has a lot of roots in KHTML

[drivebyacct2]

So if Apple does it, they're "evolving" an existing project... but the vast work that the Chrome team has put into WebKit is just nothing?

Your bias is showing. Hard.

[phlux]

This is the reason why there will be major difficulty in iOS in medical. Apple has its hands around the neck of the platform too firmly to make it feasible for serious medical enterprise apps.

There are lots of people who dont believe this, but as a healthcare designer i really think that apples model is way too greedy and crippling.

[Steko]

Meanwhile iOS is ... (wait for it) ... killing in medical:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/75-Percent-of-Physic...

[phlux]

Thats not the same thing.

There is a difference between physicians loving the DEVICE and it being the right platform for a hospital.

Trust me I know. I design hospitals and health systems.

I love the iPad - but if you think that giving 30% of your margin and 100% of control to apple is the right idea - then you're wrong.

Sure, there are a ton of one-off single use apps for iOS and most of them are fantastic - but there are inhernet flaws with the use of iOS as a platform in a facility.

For small practice, it totally makes sense - but not yet completely in a hospital.

Except, physicians dont care about where the money goes - thus, we will see a shift to apple - but I still maintain that it is wrong.

iOS will NOT lower costs in the broken US health system -- it will continue the greed and health costs will not come down.

It is a far more complex issue than measuring your fucking blood pressure or tracking how many times you worked out on your little iphone.

[rimantas]

> Trust me I know. I design hospitals and health systems.

I doubt that would encourage more trust in you.

[phlux]

Im one of the people trying to fix this shit, not one who has made the current mess....

[chrisjsmith]

Good for you - the healthcare system (worldwide) needs more objective people like yourself. Good luck!

[masklinn]

Why can't a hospital (a business) use enterprise deployment mechanisms for its core business deployments of iDevices? Rather than going through the "normal" AppStore?

[recoiledsnake]

>Apple currently holds one trump card with Safari on IOS devices though. By restricting HTML5 Audio controls, and rendering engine speed, it prevents games and music web apps from being viable inside the browser.

Relevant link: http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

It's more than 14 months since Jobs wrote the blog blasting Flash and espousing HTML5 and Safari still has all these egregious issues. I think HTML5 is not a priority for Apple except to pay lip service to it when someone asks for Flash support. After all, it will threaten their lock-in with the App-store and the tithes on Apps and content and makes Apple the middleman. They have achieved what Comcast could only dream of, tax content sold over the internet.