One thing about the Apple tablet device(s) prediction I've already laid out doesn't ring true, that they (I'm predicting two) will run significantly different OSes, one a largely unmodified iPhone OS and the other a largely unmodified Mac OS X. If that turned out to be true, it would be a case of Apple missing an opportunity to do something unexpectedly better, which would be to incorporate everything that's unique about the iPhone OS into Snow Leopard, so devices running it were equally usable with a touch interface or with mouse and keyboard, and use that on the tablets capable of running apps written for either in a single OS environment.
One of the primary complications in doing this would be to make the responder chain not only pass both types of events, but work equally well with Mac OS X windows and iPhone OS windows, which are significantly different, with appropriate mapping of touch events to methods expecting key/mouse events and vice versa. (It occurs to me that the difference between Mac OS X windows and iPhone OS windows could be quite useful as if provides an easy way of checking whether interface translation is needed; simply test for the class of the window.)
This wouldn't mean the end of a distinct iPhone OS, since the resource limitations of smaller devices are still such that it makes sense to maintain a separate system for them, but it might mean that, even if it didn't come with the circuitry, you could connect a cellular radio dongle to your tablet (or MacBook) and use it as an iPhone.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
carefully stated caveat
In one of yesteday's postings, I said the following...
A few hours later it occurred to me that it's unlikely Apple would accept the liability of even implying, in their own product descriptions, that any tablet they might produce belonged in the hands of a doctor making hospital rounds, for much the same reason that doctors typically carry hefty malpractice insurance. They might even go so far as to prohibit professional medical apps from the App Store and void the warranties of units put to such use.
Apple is no stranger to the litigious nature of our society, but the medical profession is an extreme case, with through-the-roof stakes. Hopefully we'll soon see some improvement in this state of affairs. Until then, hospitals and corporations that operate them should be prepared to develop their own apps and take full responsibility for them and for the hardware, if they want to make any Apple tablet device available to staff for any patient-related purpose.
This device would be quite at home displaying a movie streamed from a Mac or Apple TV, or equally so accompanying a doctor through hospital rounds, but it would be the smaller one that went into your pack when you were setting off for a camping trip.
A few hours later it occurred to me that it's unlikely Apple would accept the liability of even implying, in their own product descriptions, that any tablet they might produce belonged in the hands of a doctor making hospital rounds, for much the same reason that doctors typically carry hefty malpractice insurance. They might even go so far as to prohibit professional medical apps from the App Store and void the warranties of units put to such use.
Apple is no stranger to the litigious nature of our society, but the medical profession is an extreme case, with through-the-roof stakes. Hopefully we'll soon see some improvement in this state of affairs. Until then, hospitals and corporations that operate them should be prepared to develop their own apps and take full responsibility for them and for the hardware, if they want to make any Apple tablet device available to staff for any patient-related purpose.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
iPad, a "replacement for - or a compelling complement to -" AppleTV
I vote for compelling complement.
Engadget joins the fray describing a 10" 'iPad' in a home theater context.
What they seem not to have fully assimilated is that cables don't mix well with tablet computers, suggesting that "HDMI or DisplayPort would be a natural for such a device" and that Apple might want to incorporate a television tuner and inputs into it.
A Mini DisplayPort would be a fine addition to the AppleTV, whenever they get around to releasing significantly upgraded hardware, but that's exactly the sort of thing you wouldn't want to saddle a tablet with. Likewise with a coaxial RF-in port and tuner; put them on the AppleTV, not the tablet!
Engadget joins the fray describing a 10" 'iPad' in a home theater context.
What they seem not to have fully assimilated is that cables don't mix well with tablet computers, suggesting that "HDMI or DisplayPort would be a natural for such a device" and that Apple might want to incorporate a television tuner and inputs into it.
A Mini DisplayPort would be a fine addition to the AppleTV, whenever they get around to releasing significantly upgraded hardware, but that's exactly the sort of thing you wouldn't want to saddle a tablet with. Likewise with a coaxial RF-in port and tuner; put them on the AppleTV, not the tablet!
revisiting an intriguing notion, and going even further out on a limb
Last week Dan Knight, of Low End Mac, speculated that an Apple tablet device with a 10" touchscreen would have an Intel CPU running Mac OS X, with iPhone OS also supported via what he terms virtualization. (Note that there has been an iPhone emulator built into Xcode ever since the iPhone SDK was released, so what he suggests is entirely plausible.)
If there are to be two different Apple tablet devices, it might be that one (most likely the smaller) will contain an ARM CPU running iPhone OS and the other an Intel CPU running Mac OS X, or something closer to it (including both AppKit and UIKit), perhaps with an emulation environment for running iPhone OS apps.
Incorporating this into what I've already predicted, we have two distinct devices (not two versions of the same device):
1) one with a 7-inch touchscreen, running iPhone OS on an ARM CPU, including a software-defined radio unit for long-range data connectivity, and enough battery capacity to support at least three hours operation with that power-hungry datalink continuously active, and
2) one with a 10-inch touchscreen, running Mac OS X on an Intel CPU, with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but no long-range radio circuitry.
These would be aimed at very different use patterns. The former would be a mobile platform and wireless network node, perhaps also providing connectivity to a laptop computer, whereas the latter would be for use in the home and other environments where it was never far away from a power outlet or a Wi-Fi signal.
It would be the larger unit, with the Intel CPU, that might run both Mac and iPhone applications. This device would be quite at home displaying a movie streamed from a Mac or Apple TV, or equally so accompanying a doctor through hospital rounds, but it would be the smaller one that went into your pack when you were setting off for a camping trip.
I'd expect the smaller device to default to portrait orientation, and the larger one to landscape.
I'd also expect the larger device to be released first, since the 4G networks that would make the smaller one so interesting are only now being built out, or are still in planning, and since the larger one is a better fit to a tie-in with music industry efforts to reinvigorate the multitrack album format, as well as a better tie-in with the release of Snow Leopard.
So, what we might see is a larger, Mac OS X device released as soon as September, and a smaller, iPhone OS device sometime next year.
Apple has an abundance of experience with processor emulation and code translation (MC68000 on PPC and then PPC and ARM/Thumb on Intel), with virtual environments (Classic, Rosetta, and an in-house JVM on Mac OS X and the iPhone simulator in Xcode), and with hardware abstraction (the Acceleration Framework, OpenCL, and Grand Central Dispatch), as well as with touch interfaces (iPhone and iPod touch), so there's no reason to think either device described here would present an insurmountable challenge to them.
If there are to be two different Apple tablet devices, it might be that one (most likely the smaller) will contain an ARM CPU running iPhone OS and the other an Intel CPU running Mac OS X, or something closer to it (including both AppKit and UIKit), perhaps with an emulation environment for running iPhone OS apps.
Incorporating this into what I've already predicted, we have two distinct devices (not two versions of the same device):
1) one with a 7-inch touchscreen, running iPhone OS on an ARM CPU, including a software-defined radio unit for long-range data connectivity, and enough battery capacity to support at least three hours operation with that power-hungry datalink continuously active, and
2) one with a 10-inch touchscreen, running Mac OS X on an Intel CPU, with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but no long-range radio circuitry.
These would be aimed at very different use patterns. The former would be a mobile platform and wireless network node, perhaps also providing connectivity to a laptop computer, whereas the latter would be for use in the home and other environments where it was never far away from a power outlet or a Wi-Fi signal.
It would be the larger unit, with the Intel CPU, that might run both Mac and iPhone applications. This device would be quite at home displaying a movie streamed from a Mac or Apple TV, or equally so accompanying a doctor through hospital rounds, but it would be the smaller one that went into your pack when you were setting off for a camping trip.
I'd expect the smaller device to default to portrait orientation, and the larger one to landscape.
I'd also expect the larger device to be released first, since the 4G networks that would make the smaller one so interesting are only now being built out, or are still in planning, and since the larger one is a better fit to a tie-in with music industry efforts to reinvigorate the multitrack album format, as well as a better tie-in with the release of Snow Leopard.
So, what we might see is a larger, Mac OS X device released as soon as September, and a smaller, iPhone OS device sometime next year.
Apple has an abundance of experience with processor emulation and code translation (MC68000 on PPC and then PPC and ARM/Thumb on Intel), with virtual environments (Classic, Rosetta, and an in-house JVM on Mac OS X and the iPhone simulator in Xcode), and with hardware abstraction (the Acceleration Framework, OpenCL, and Grand Central Dispatch), as well as with touch interfaces (iPhone and iPod touch), so there's no reason to think either device described here would present an insurmountable challenge to them.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
the continuing saga of the Apple tablet device
Today AppleInsider picked up a report from Kaufman Bros. that, over the last two years, Apple has purchased digital displays in 4 inch, 7 inch, 9 inch, 10 inch, and 12 inch sizes, and that some of these purchases were for a number of units appropriate to a small production run. While AppleInsider's report doesn't state outright that these were touchscreens, that is implied from the context.
In a separate development, Ars Technica reports finding yet another reference to an as yet unreleased iPhone OS device in the USBConfiguration.plist file distributed with an iPhone OS 3.1 beta release. That news shouldn't be public, but it is.
Meanwhile, Stefan Constantinescu contends that the Apple tablet device is a pipedream, one that will never come true. While his conclusion is looking like a long shot, he includes an interesting timeline of how the rumor of such a device has developed.
Given the various screen sizes that Apple has experimented with, I'm going to go a little further out on a limb and predict that the 2 versions of the Apple tablet device I've already predicted will be two different sizes, 7 inch and 10 inch, with the SMALLER of the two including the software-defined radio unit and being the more expensive (except as its purchase may be subsidized by one or more data service providers), as well as thicker than and approximately the same weight as the device with the larger screen.
In a separate development, Ars Technica reports finding yet another reference to an as yet unreleased iPhone OS device in the USBConfiguration.plist file distributed with an iPhone OS 3.1 beta release. That news shouldn't be public, but it is.
Meanwhile, Stefan Constantinescu contends that the Apple tablet device is a pipedream, one that will never come true. While his conclusion is looking like a long shot, he includes an interesting timeline of how the rumor of such a device has developed.
Given the various screen sizes that Apple has experimented with, I'm going to go a little further out on a limb and predict that the 2 versions of the Apple tablet device I've already predicted will be two different sizes, 7 inch and 10 inch, with the SMALLER of the two including the software-defined radio unit and being the more expensive (except as its purchase may be subsidized by one or more data service providers), as well as thicker than and approximately the same weight as the device with the larger screen.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Apple's much-rumored tablet device
While the rumor mill is abuzz with the prospect of an Apple tablet device, the anticipated details vary considerably.
Dan Knight of Low End Mac argues that the processor is likely to be the same type found in the MacBook Air, and that the device could be able to run either iPhone OS or the full-blown Mac OS X, possibly simultaneously. Others assume that the processor will be some variation on the ARM architecture, and that the operating system will be essentially the same as that found on the iPod Touch, the iPhone OS without the telephony components.
AppleInsider initially reported that we shouldn't expect to see this device released until early 2010, but then followed a few days later with the news that it might arrive as soon as September. (Apple's fiscal 1Q-2010 begins in October, '09.)
Financial Times broke the story that there is a tie-in between Apple's tablet and an effort to bring back the multitrack album, which has been losing ground to single song sales. PC Magazine chimed in in support of the FT story, adding some details of their own.
Jason Schwarz of Seeking Alpha emphasized how the new tablet will get a big boost from apps already written for the iPhone and iPod touch, and that it will be an even better platform for such apps. He also suggests that there's a tie-in between the tablet and a high-speed data offering from Verizon, but claims that there will be no carrier exclusivity.
Others hoping to climb on board the bandwagon include book publishers, who see such a device as potentially presenting a better opportunity for them than does Amazon's Kindle.
Meanwhile, Mac Night Owl asks whether an Apple tablet device would be "a product in search of a purpose", and PC World has already pronounced it "a train wreck".
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it will come in two versions, a less expensive version with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but no long-range datalink, and a more expensive version with a software-defined radio unit capable of working with a variety of data services.
Boom! ;-)
Dan Knight of Low End Mac argues that the processor is likely to be the same type found in the MacBook Air, and that the device could be able to run either iPhone OS or the full-blown Mac OS X, possibly simultaneously. Others assume that the processor will be some variation on the ARM architecture, and that the operating system will be essentially the same as that found on the iPod Touch, the iPhone OS without the telephony components.
AppleInsider initially reported that we shouldn't expect to see this device released until early 2010, but then followed a few days later with the news that it might arrive as soon as September. (Apple's fiscal 1Q-2010 begins in October, '09.)
Financial Times broke the story that there is a tie-in between Apple's tablet and an effort to bring back the multitrack album, which has been losing ground to single song sales. PC Magazine chimed in in support of the FT story, adding some details of their own.
Jason Schwarz of Seeking Alpha emphasized how the new tablet will get a big boost from apps already written for the iPhone and iPod touch, and that it will be an even better platform for such apps. He also suggests that there's a tie-in between the tablet and a high-speed data offering from Verizon, but claims that there will be no carrier exclusivity.
Others hoping to climb on board the bandwagon include book publishers, who see such a device as potentially presenting a better opportunity for them than does Amazon's Kindle.
Meanwhile, Mac Night Owl asks whether an Apple tablet device would be "a product in search of a purpose", and PC World has already pronounced it "a train wreck".
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it will come in two versions, a less expensive version with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but no long-range datalink, and a more expensive version with a software-defined radio unit capable of working with a variety of data services.
Boom! ;-)
Saturday, August 01, 2009
what's wrong with Microsoft's business plan
Microsoft's consumer PC OS market has been reduced to those for whom price is a primary factor in choosing between one product and another. A little reading between the lines would suggest that the same is also happening to their business market. People (business buyers included) who are more interested in productivity than per unit price are increasingly turning to Apple instead of any of the brands running Windows. Hardware quality certainly contributes to this, but the main difference between a Mac and a Windows machine is the operating system, and that's where the difference in quality is most stark. Since releasing XP, Microsoft has given every indication of being clueless as to how to proceed from there, whereas Mac OS X has seen significant improvement with each major update. Windows 7, due in October, will fix many of Vista's faults, but it is fundamentally the same architecture as XP (plus Vista's compositing engine), better implemented than Vista but otherwise much the same, rather like Mac OS 10.1 which was widely perceived as an apology for 10.0. (10.0, by the way, already had a compositing engine.)
Microsoft plans to make use of the window of opportunity surrounding the release of Windows 7 to pry the prices of the least expensive Windows machines upward. Certainly they'd like to have more for Windows 7 than they've been able to charge for Vista since its bubble burst, but they must also recognize that their hardware partners are in danger of going out of business, or at least of getting out of the PC business, if they aren't able to show some profit on their investments. So far so good, a little more margin will make all involved (except the consumer and price-conscious business buyer) more comfortable, but it will also further narrow the price advantage of Windows machines over Macs, and widen the price advantage of Linux-based computers.
So how much is a better Vista worth? How much can prices go up, on the merits of Windows 7, before the effect is to accelerate the rate of defections, to Apple at the high end and to Linux at the low end? 10%? 20%? Hard to say, but it's certain that they can't take a very large bite out of that $500 per unit premium Steve Ballmer claims Apple is charging before running into a wall. People will say to themselves "if I'm going to pay the price of a Mac, I might as well get a Mac!"
And, given that Windows 7 will be facing off with Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is a bigger improvement over 10.5 than Windows 7 is over Vista, the vast majority of those who really give it a try will become loyal Mac users, with no thought of ever going back. Microsoft had best be careful not to do anything to interfere with the installation of Windows on Macs or (even more so) with the usability of the Mac version of Office as compared with the PC version, or they may end up losing the majority of their future revenue.
Unless they find a way to get more improvement for their development dollar, the unprofitability of further Windows development I've previously predicted will sooner or later come to pass, at which point Windows will become a static standard, updated only for compatibility with new hardware, if that. Microsoft may eventually be forced to release the source code to keep the platform viable as a foundation for their PC version of Office.
Microsoft plans to make use of the window of opportunity surrounding the release of Windows 7 to pry the prices of the least expensive Windows machines upward. Certainly they'd like to have more for Windows 7 than they've been able to charge for Vista since its bubble burst, but they must also recognize that their hardware partners are in danger of going out of business, or at least of getting out of the PC business, if they aren't able to show some profit on their investments. So far so good, a little more margin will make all involved (except the consumer and price-conscious business buyer) more comfortable, but it will also further narrow the price advantage of Windows machines over Macs, and widen the price advantage of Linux-based computers.
So how much is a better Vista worth? How much can prices go up, on the merits of Windows 7, before the effect is to accelerate the rate of defections, to Apple at the high end and to Linux at the low end? 10%? 20%? Hard to say, but it's certain that they can't take a very large bite out of that $500 per unit premium Steve Ballmer claims Apple is charging before running into a wall. People will say to themselves "if I'm going to pay the price of a Mac, I might as well get a Mac!"
And, given that Windows 7 will be facing off with Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is a bigger improvement over 10.5 than Windows 7 is over Vista, the vast majority of those who really give it a try will become loyal Mac users, with no thought of ever going back. Microsoft had best be careful not to do anything to interfere with the installation of Windows on Macs or (even more so) with the usability of the Mac version of Office as compared with the PC version, or they may end up losing the majority of their future revenue.
Unless they find a way to get more improvement for their development dollar, the unprofitability of further Windows development I've previously predicted will sooner or later come to pass, at which point Windows will become a static standard, updated only for compatibility with new hardware, if that. Microsoft may eventually be forced to release the source code to keep the platform viable as a foundation for their PC version of Office.
Friday, July 31, 2009
the other Steve: incompletely delusional
It's hard to know whether to compare Steve Ballmer with P. T. Barnum or with the alcoholic persona brought to life by W. C. Fields. John Gruber of Daring Fireball compares him with Grand Moff Tarkin of the original Star Wars film (now episode IV).
In a much longer piece, yesterday, Gruber lays out a compelling argument that Microsoft has entered a phase of long-term decline, whereas Ballmer would have you believe that recent trends in the market are a drop in the bucket when compared with Microsoft's still undeniable dominance of the PC operating system market, as measured by unit sales (counting a netbook the same as a workstation). (Here's Rafe Colburn responding to Gruber.)
But put a roomful of Mac-using journalists and investors in front of him, and even he notices.
In a much longer piece, yesterday, Gruber lays out a compelling argument that Microsoft has entered a phase of long-term decline, whereas Ballmer would have you believe that recent trends in the market are a drop in the bucket when compared with Microsoft's still undeniable dominance of the PC operating system market, as measured by unit sales (counting a netbook the same as a workstation). (Here's Rafe Colburn responding to Gruber.)
But put a roomful of Mac-using journalists and investors in front of him, and even he notices.
Friday, July 24, 2009
ordering feed for uncounted chickens
They say don't count your chickens before they hatch. They also say don't count on any rumors about new Apple products until you hear it from Steve Jobs (or Phil Schiller).
On the other hand, you sometimes have to take uncertainties into account in making plans for the future, rather than waiting for them to be resolved into news.
The rumored Apple tablet device is one such case. If the rumors are true, it's introduction will lead to tremendous change in the personal computer market.
It will enable applications for which the iPhone or iPod touch would be perfectly suited, if they just had a little more screen area, or if they had a few times the memory or faster processors. This by itself is huge.
It will get a jump start by running existing iPhone/iPod touch apps unmodified. This may be speculation, but it makes too much sense not to be part of the plan. Expect the resolution to be a simple multiple of that of the iPhone, like 640 X 960, or maybe 800 X 1200, maintaining the 2 X 3 aspect ratio.
As far as I'm concerned, the prospect of extremely fast cellular wireless internet connectivity is icing on the cake, but there are doubtless potential applications for which this is essential. Moreover, if tethering to your desktop is allowed, it will prove a huge selling point.
In fact, that issue of interoperability with other equipment remains a big question mark. Would an Apple tablet device work as a touch interface input device for your Mac? Would it work as a remote controller and/or handheld viewer for your Apple TV? Chances are the answer to both is "yes, with the appropriate application running."
If you're a (potential) iPhone software developer, you'll be wanting to keep the possibility of a larger device that works very much the same way as does an iPhone in the back of your mind, maybe even starting to accumulate the alternative resources you'd want to include if there were a possibility of your app running on a device with 4..9 (2^2 to 3^2) times the screen resolution, or making sure your app is resolution independent by using vector-based graphics.
To get back to the main point. The significance of the release of this device, if it happens, is too great to ignore just because it might not happen. If it happens (and it's looking like a good bet that it will) it will be HUGE!
(Here's Jason O'Grady's take on what an Apple tablet would need to be successful.)
On the other hand, you sometimes have to take uncertainties into account in making plans for the future, rather than waiting for them to be resolved into news.
The rumored Apple tablet device is one such case. If the rumors are true, it's introduction will lead to tremendous change in the personal computer market.
It will enable applications for which the iPhone or iPod touch would be perfectly suited, if they just had a little more screen area, or if they had a few times the memory or faster processors. This by itself is huge.
It will get a jump start by running existing iPhone/iPod touch apps unmodified. This may be speculation, but it makes too much sense not to be part of the plan. Expect the resolution to be a simple multiple of that of the iPhone, like 640 X 960, or maybe 800 X 1200, maintaining the 2 X 3 aspect ratio.
As far as I'm concerned, the prospect of extremely fast cellular wireless internet connectivity is icing on the cake, but there are doubtless potential applications for which this is essential. Moreover, if tethering to your desktop is allowed, it will prove a huge selling point.
In fact, that issue of interoperability with other equipment remains a big question mark. Would an Apple tablet device work as a touch interface input device for your Mac? Would it work as a remote controller and/or handheld viewer for your Apple TV? Chances are the answer to both is "yes, with the appropriate application running."
If you're a (potential) iPhone software developer, you'll be wanting to keep the possibility of a larger device that works very much the same way as does an iPhone in the back of your mind, maybe even starting to accumulate the alternative resources you'd want to include if there were a possibility of your app running on a device with 4..9 (2^2 to 3^2) times the screen resolution, or making sure your app is resolution independent by using vector-based graphics.
To get back to the main point. The significance of the release of this device, if it happens, is too great to ignore just because it might not happen. If it happens (and it's looking like a good bet that it will) it will be HUGE!
(Here's Jason O'Grady's take on what an Apple tablet would need to be successful.)
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Google VP: the web has won
In an informal panel discussion before the MobileBeat 2009 conference, Google engineering vice president and developer evangelist, Vic Gundotra, said "that the web had won and users of mobile phones would get their information and entertainment from browsers in future." (Financial Times Tech Blog)
Saying "the browser [...] will become the platform that matters," Mr. Gundotra pointed out that browsers built around Webkit would have access to information provided by GPS and accelerometer hardware. Interestingly, both Google's own Android and Palm both make use of Webkit in their respective browsers.
His main point is about the expense of supporting several different operating system platforms, versus the expense of providing a single, cross-platform web application. And, wherever that argument applies, he's certainly right.
My point is that this argument isn't as universally applicable as it might seem.
For example, processor intensive games, commonly done in OpenGL, aren't going to be delivered as web applications anytime soon, because their performance would suffer too much as compared with the same games delivered as native applications. Even if the more important mobile device operating systems all provided both OpenGL and some means of making direct use of it from within their web environments, the chances that the exact same code would run properly on any two is vanishingly small. In any case, game developers have been shifting away from direct coding and towards the use of cross-platform development environments, that provide the tools and performance they need while taking the pain out of supporting multiple platforms. While it wouldn't be what Gundotra is talking about, a hybrid system you might see would couple a native game engine app from the provider of such a development system with web apps that run within the environment it creates. Combined with a web-based framework, like SproutCore, that approach could be very powerful. (Bingo!) Game developers will support as many platforms as makes sense in the market, variations on the web included.
Performance is only one reason for preferring native applications to web applications. There's also the matter of general functionality. I personally lost most of my interest in developing for the web when I discovered there was no standard means of generating synthesized sound in real time, and while workarounds might exist they were both platform and browser specific. I decided I was better off to pick a platform and develop for it instead of for the web. So far as I'm aware, that situation has not yet been remedied in HTML5.
There are good reasons why native applications will continue to have more functionality available than do cross-platform web apps, for some time to come. First, at least in Apple's approach, vending all native applications through its iTunes Store, problem apps are quickly identified and those that remain on the system for more than a few days can be considered trustworthy, far more trustworthy than a web app from some random source. Hence the walls of the sandbox around web apps must necessarily be higher than those that surround native apps.
Almost as significantly, cross-platform web applications depend upon web standards, which require agreement among vendors, which takes time. Any new development will nearly always appear in one or more native app toolsets (long) before it appears as a web capability enjoying widespread support. Consider that the animation capabilities included in HTML5 were first introduced to the market with the advent of the Amiga computer, in 1985, ten years before the web went mainstream.
Then there's the advantage of working with tools you already know. Apple has attracted 100,000 people, with widely varying degrees of programming experience, to their iPhone platform. That's very likely many millions of person-hours spent studying documentation, learning how OS X works, an investment many won't be eager to walk away from to take up HTML5 instead. For more than a few it won't matter at all that their apps only run on iPhone OS devices, and not on everything out there.
And let's not forget that the cost of getting into the web app business includes either running your own continuously connected server or renting space and bandwidth on someone else's, whereas an independent developer working from a coffee shop can get an app published on the iTunes Store, and Apple handles all of the nitty gritty details, for a mere 30% commission.
Nevertheless, there will be situations where web apps make more sense, and it's good to see the standard finally moving forward.
Saying "the browser [...] will become the platform that matters," Mr. Gundotra pointed out that browsers built around Webkit would have access to information provided by GPS and accelerometer hardware. Interestingly, both Google's own Android and Palm both make use of Webkit in their respective browsers.
His main point is about the expense of supporting several different operating system platforms, versus the expense of providing a single, cross-platform web application. And, wherever that argument applies, he's certainly right.
My point is that this argument isn't as universally applicable as it might seem.
For example, processor intensive games, commonly done in OpenGL, aren't going to be delivered as web applications anytime soon, because their performance would suffer too much as compared with the same games delivered as native applications. Even if the more important mobile device operating systems all provided both OpenGL and some means of making direct use of it from within their web environments, the chances that the exact same code would run properly on any two is vanishingly small. In any case, game developers have been shifting away from direct coding and towards the use of cross-platform development environments, that provide the tools and performance they need while taking the pain out of supporting multiple platforms. While it wouldn't be what Gundotra is talking about, a hybrid system you might see would couple a native game engine app from the provider of such a development system with web apps that run within the environment it creates. Combined with a web-based framework, like SproutCore, that approach could be very powerful. (Bingo!) Game developers will support as many platforms as makes sense in the market, variations on the web included.
Performance is only one reason for preferring native applications to web applications. There's also the matter of general functionality. I personally lost most of my interest in developing for the web when I discovered there was no standard means of generating synthesized sound in real time, and while workarounds might exist they were both platform and browser specific. I decided I was better off to pick a platform and develop for it instead of for the web. So far as I'm aware, that situation has not yet been remedied in HTML5.
There are good reasons why native applications will continue to have more functionality available than do cross-platform web apps, for some time to come. First, at least in Apple's approach, vending all native applications through its iTunes Store, problem apps are quickly identified and those that remain on the system for more than a few days can be considered trustworthy, far more trustworthy than a web app from some random source. Hence the walls of the sandbox around web apps must necessarily be higher than those that surround native apps.
Almost as significantly, cross-platform web applications depend upon web standards, which require agreement among vendors, which takes time. Any new development will nearly always appear in one or more native app toolsets (long) before it appears as a web capability enjoying widespread support. Consider that the animation capabilities included in HTML5 were first introduced to the market with the advent of the Amiga computer, in 1985, ten years before the web went mainstream.
Then there's the advantage of working with tools you already know. Apple has attracted 100,000 people, with widely varying degrees of programming experience, to their iPhone platform. That's very likely many millions of person-hours spent studying documentation, learning how OS X works, an investment many won't be eager to walk away from to take up HTML5 instead. For more than a few it won't matter at all that their apps only run on iPhone OS devices, and not on everything out there.
And let's not forget that the cost of getting into the web app business includes either running your own continuously connected server or renting space and bandwidth on someone else's, whereas an independent developer working from a coffee shop can get an app published on the iTunes Store, and Apple handles all of the nitty gritty details, for a mere 30% commission.
Nevertheless, there will be situations where web apps make more sense, and it's good to see the standard finally moving forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)