And that brings us back again to the fact that JS, CSS, HTML5 and Canvas make up a horrendously bad development platform for the kind of apps you see on the iPhone, or even Flash. It's not impossible, if you have brilliant developers and many millions of dollars of resources like Google does, but it's much much more difficult.
Ironically, a main disadvantage it has is extreme dependence and incompatibility among different browsers, and dealing with this can easily swamp the development cycle. Even performance differences across different versions of JS can make massive differences to an application. This situation shows not even a hint that it could improve in the future. Developing for iPhone, you write the app once and it will work the same on everyone's hardware.
I've been modded down on forums for a couple of years consistently for pointing this out, yet you sure don't see many developers actually building complex apps using JavaScript platforms, despite the lip service given to it.
I'm sorry but this isn't true. Platforms such as NOLOH, Cappuccino and many others allows you to develop sophisticated web applications without having to worry about JS, CSS, HTML5, or browser differences, among many other things.
You say Developing for iPhone, you write the app once and it will work the same on everyone's hardware, similarly developing with NOLOH or Cappuccino for example allows you to write your code once and have it work automatically on all browsers, and operating systems.
Furthermore, you definitely wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars to develop products like Google's with these technologies.
As a matter of fact we've had complete novices use NOLOH and create applications significantly more advanced than their counterparts applications from Google, Microsoft, and others.
The problem is that as you say developers aren't using the tools that are available, it's not that these tools don't exist. In my interactions with developers the problem usually stems from not wanting to use these tools that are available. For whatever reason when it comes to the web many developers don't feel like they should be using frameworks, but rather deal with the hell that is the current web themselves.
However, when it comes to building applications for iPhone, iPad, and similar devices they have no problems using the frameworks provided to them.
You can have the best tools around but if nobody uses them it doesn't matter, but saying that the web is a bad development platform or that it takes many millions of dollars of resources just isn't true any more. All it takes is an open mind.
I call BS, even if you build an application for a single browser on a single OS trying to get any sort of complex application running with the range of screen sizes and interfaces (keyboard/touch/PS3 controllers/crappy cellphones), and processing power is just not happening without serious compromises. So while the browser wars are part of the problem you still need to pick your target audiences and develop for several platforms.
What does easing of delivering applications over the web have to with the fact that you have to separately design separate UX for different devices. You are talking about different two problems as they are one.
Are the browser differences really worse than differences between OS and dev environments? That is, rather than even out browser kinks, you'd prefer to port from Java to Objective-C or vice versa?
Also so far most mobile browsers seem to be based on WebKit, and you can assume a specific browser, so it should be easier than on the open www.
That's why the article argues that Google should be releasing tools to make this development easier - a framework can deal with a lot of the inconsistencies between browsers.
A framework would be a start, but overall a very incomplete solution that's nowhere near as nice as the well-defined playground that is the iPhone/iPad and their corresponding app stores. JQuery and friends brought cross-browser web development, with animations, ajax, etc., into the realm of possibility for many people where it would have been completely impractical to do before. Even still, getting cross-browser apps to run when everything is written cleanly results in a lot of piled-on hacks.
The biggest problem though is a lack of a well-organized app store: centralized distribution, the arguable benefits of a review process, and most significantly the monetization framework that it provides.
BTW - great idea for startup. Create a framework to monetize web apps/software as a service similar to the one provided by the AppStore and Apple ecosystem...
To play Devil's Advocate, why would Google want you to create stuff that works across browsers? They have their own browser and are creating an operating system based on that browser. It's in their interests to reward you to develop on Chrome, in the hopes of causing a similar app-driven fanboy rush for Chrome OS.
Because Google makes money on browsing, not selling web browsers. The faster and more functional everybody's websites are with all browsers, the more page views result, and the more money Google ultimately makes. Its in Google's best interest that all browsers can navigate the web effectively.
Even if such a thing could cope with rendering differences, there's not a damn thing it could do about performance differences (unless it artificially slowed down everything to run as fast as the worst browser).
".why the downvotes? I don't care about the karma, just want to understand why I was wrong."
Voting on HN has gone to the dogs a bit recently with thoughtless (and often mass) downvoting. There is often no real "reason" except some dumb fellow got up oon the wrong side of the bed today.
My suggestion, don't worry about it, just say what you want to. By and large, good comments are upvoted sooner or later. (upvoted you btw)
Computers have different speeds, and the same software still runs on them. (Unless the computer's too slow or the program is sloppily coded, but then that's the fault of the manufacturer or programmer.) Why do you think a framework should iron out performance differences?
I specifically don't think that. My comment's grandparent mentioned performance differences between browsers, and my comment's parent suggested that a JS framework could smooth out differences between browsers. I was pointing out precisely that a JS framework wouldn't be able to compensate for that.
Add to that the effort it would take to support credit card processing to sell your web app, then compare whatever you'll build to the two-taps buying process in the App Store. For a large class of applications [1], there's little doubt that developing for the App Store still has an enormous advantage over a web-based counterpart.
1. Luckily for Apple, it's precisely the class of applications that makes them money. I can't imagine Steve cares very much if GMail is a native or web application.
When Palm announced this, I thought it was a brilliant move. It took our team less than half the time to develop our WebOS app as our other native apps, and it's more stable than when they were first released. The downside is mostly performance. WebOS apps are built upon so many layers of abstraction and interpretation, they are significantly slower than native apps on the same hardware.
That doesn't matter if everything your app does is trivial and not intensive, but it's pretty limiting. Chances are, our next version will have to use the native APIs that games are now beginning to use, if we can get access to them. I'm sure that if Google did the same thing, we'd end up in the same boat.
The browser seems to be where Google is strongest, and I think they know that. Look at Maps, Translate, Gmail, Documents, even their plans for the Chrome OS. I think they combat Apple on other platforms more to antagonize them, leaving their main efforts for the web.
I must say I am very sceptical about web applications. Not because of their performance. But because of their (major) privacy and data control problems.
I think that will make most web applications obsolete within the decade. Things like Gmail, Facebook, Google Docs, Blogger, and YouTube will be wiped out by plug computers (provided they are made as easy to use as web apps).
(1) Webapps for the iphone where the first apps for the iphone. Apart form the head start, the lip service, the momentum, there are already many good reasons to prefer to develop these over native apps. Yet, iphone apps are developed, bought, sold, used. That's pretty good indication that there is some advantage here.
(2) Google doesn't have a business model around this. I would argue that they aren't proven in developing new business models. The 'get more people browsing' has its limits, even for Google. Microsoft had an empire to create from an OS standard. What does Google really have to gain? I know they are active in this space and putting a lot of money into it but, there is a limit to how far they can go without getting a return.
Everyone is going to flame me for this but what the hell -
Dude, please.. spell and grammar check before you post stuff on your blog. There is no way you are going to be taken seriously if your content reads like a C-average high school essay.
Can do:
"Apple was almost completely destroyed but it’s"
..
"Apple was almost completely destroyed by its" - proofreading would catch "but/by". "It's" is a contraction for "it is". No apostrophe is needed.
"between today market situation and the past"
..
"between today's market situation and the past" - "Today" is used as a possessive so it owns the "market situation". Ownership (in many cases) necessitates an apostrophe+"s". This is John's car. Tomorrow is Kate's birthday. It's a nuance that an ESL student can easily miss.
In fact, rereading your entire post I see many things that are rules that can easily be overlooked by ESL students.
Also, dashes ("-") should not be used for pauses unless they are being used for dramatic effect (someone will correct me on this and that's OK.) In every place where you used it (I count 4) it should either be replaced with a comma or eliminated.
"Apple announced it’s newest baby – game-changing device"
..
"Apple announced its newest baby, a game-changing device"
"During the “PC war” there was a common platform for all the PC Clones – it was Microsoft DOS/Windows."
..
"During the “PC war” Microsoft DOS/Windows was the common platform for all the PC clones."
"And here we are today – Apple is not afraid of competitors"
..
"So here we are today. Apple is not afraid of competitors"
"we know it can be done – JQTouch anyone?" - OK
"write native apps for Android – instead they should reward"
..
"write native apps for Android. Instead they should reward"
English is a very hard language to learn, so don't feel bad. There aren't many simple, clear rules, and it's all weird edge cases and homonyms and you have to figure out which is which from context. Everyone has to figure it out through trial and error - including native English speakers.
> "It's" is a contraction for "it is". No apostrophe is needed.
No. "Its" is a possessive, which puts it in the same class as words like "his" and "hers". If it were a contraction for "it is" then you'd definitely need the apostrophe.
You're parsing the paragraph wrong. The sentence "No apostrophe is needed" doesn't refer to the immediately preceding sentence, it is referring to the original use of "it's" by JarekS.
Ah well. Someone on the internet was wrong, I had to correct them. :)
You're writing your paragraph wrong - the last sentence was incomplete. Something like "No apostrophe is needed when using the possessive its." would have made the object of your sentence much clearer.
One of those other basic but trial-and-error rules of English: don't implicitly refer to something that's a long way away (in this case 4 phrases distant) from your sentence or someone will misunderstand you.
ok, major mistakes: (and my corrections probably have some mistakes in them as well, this isn't easy stuff)
1. "Its" versus "It's". Its is possesive. It's means "it is".
2. "game-changing device with graphical user interface." should be "a game-changing device with a graphical user interface." Notice the "a".
3. "but it’s competitors" - you mean this: "by its competitors". Notice the BUT and the ITS.
4. "they offered cheaper version of Mac also with graphical user interface" should be: "they offered a cheaper version of the Mac which had the same graphical user interface".
That's just the first paragraph :) But writing is hard, especially if it's not your native language, so don't give up.
I took at look at your main app page. To be honest as a one-language-only filthy American I do think twice whenever I feel the wording does not "sound right". It makes me question the quality of the product or service (however unwarranted) and makes it a lot harder for me to trust you with my money.
With that said, here's a quick rewrite of some of your copy. You can use it verbatim if you like it, but otherwise I will not be offended if you think its terrible either =)
------
The Internet gives You the unique opportunity to change the way You interact with Your customers.
Let's imagine you want to sell shoes on the Internet. You go to a site like eBay.com and signup. With a couple of clicks
you get instant access to a huge marketplace of buyers and sellers, powerful merchant tools like payment processing, inventory management and automatic printable shipping labels; you get a complete service solution instantly.
But what if you sell services?
Selling & delivering shoes is not like selling & delivering services. Service-based businesses typically must deal with:
-- Long, drawn-out sales cycles.
-- Project delivery and continual customer communication.
-- Virtual team management and subcontracting.
-- Billing & invoicing - often in phases based on billable man-hours.
Above all, we must be human. A service based business succeeds on the quality of human-level support and follow through.
-----
Notes:
I took out a lot of unecessary filler words. You don't need to put things like "we feel", or "I believe", be confident and talk as if it's fact! Also be very conscious of using "I" and "we". Replace those with "YOU" when applicable. The application, the service, the benefits, its all about YOUR CUSTOMER. YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU. Get used to writing about your customer.
If you're concerned abut these flames, you could probably just add a note that English is your second language and that you're not particularly strong in English writing.
Many people might already know that after reading your blog. However, the note may eliminate some flames from other people who don't think of this possibility
Of course, this doesn't preclude your learning better English grammar
Have you tried using an automated grammar checker? The latest versions of MS Word are pretty good. I've also heard good reports about WhiteSmoke http://www.whitesmoke.com/ but haven't tried it myself.
Google needs to expose the USB port in android. That would allow a plethora of add-on third party devices that the iPhone would never be capable of supporting.
erm, you know that battery tech hasn't changed much in the last 20 something years right? With USB 3.0 supporting 1 amp devices, I think we'll be seeing more power hungry usb devices than ones that can run on a battery pack. Bluetooth was engineered for the "USB" of mobile devices... I don't think there's a single battery powered platform that makes heavy use of usb for these obvious reasons.
It seems like Adobe is already filling this niche, but it has the potential to be better than HTML/JS in couple ways. First of all, you're supposed to be able to deploy native apps to the iPhone/iPod/iPad in CS5. Second, you can develop with the Flex IDE (or whatever Adobe is calling it now), which has a GUI builder, a visual CSS editor, and lots of other nice stuff.
A good first step for Google would be to list web apps in the Android Market. I don't expect them to drop everything and focus on web apps but they could at least level the playing field. This should probably also include some way to offer paid web apps. No clue how that would work but it's going to be an issue that has to get resolved.
Besides putting weight behind HTML5 as a means of making native (not native-quality, but native) Android apps, Google should be working with Adobe (and RunRev and Unity3D and whoever) too. Frankly, Flash isn't the closed platform that should frighten them anymore.
I also mentioned this above, but the CS5 release of the Flash IDE (due out in a couple days) is supposed to support deploying native iPhone/iPod/iPad apps. Given that Android phones already support some level of flash, this could make flash a pretty attractive option for developing cross platform apps.
Ironically, a main disadvantage it has is extreme dependence and incompatibility among different browsers, and dealing with this can easily swamp the development cycle. Even performance differences across different versions of JS can make massive differences to an application. This situation shows not even a hint that it could improve in the future. Developing for iPhone, you write the app once and it will work the same on everyone's hardware.
I've been modded down on forums for a couple of years consistently for pointing this out, yet you sure don't see many developers actually building complex apps using JavaScript platforms, despite the lip service given to it.