Suster: "App is crap. (Apple is bad for your health)"
Yes his article headline is flame bait, read past that to find what he is really is trying to say.
(note: I will be adding to my ignore list those who flame or troll me)
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2...r-your-health/
After reading his whole tripe, the point I get he was trying to make was it's not a good thing to place all your eggs in one basket. To develop the same app across multiple devices and chiefly on web browsers to avoid the censorship or business conflicts that could arise with apps being controlled by the device maker.
GoogleVoice App is a prime example, it's allowed on many smart phones, but removed from the App Store. But now there is a GoogleVoice web browser version for iPhones, but the damage has already been done.
And we know about the recent cleanup of racy apps on the App Store too, despite what your opinion is about racy apps, it's still a investment by a business or person that was suddenly nipped prematurely after first being allowed.
So this guy is saying, since one doesn't know what Apple (or anyone other device maker) is going to censor next on their stores, it's better to develop apps to run on web browsers, gaining the widest possible audience, then take your chances with device makers stores.
I think this a good approach, Apple seems to want to keep their App Store a pristine environment for children, the most apps sold are games and the iPod Touch is mostly a gaming device.
Far as I know, most games require more than what them running inside a browser can deliver. So they have little other choice. (could it be that Apple isn't allowing Flash because that would shift games to the web instead?)
Also using iTunes to research the over 100,000 apps available is not a very smooth process as it could be and I can't find a easy way to browse all the apps on Apple's web site neither. Perhaps that is by design, perhaps Apple doesn't want to micromanage 1,000,000 apps on their App Store, rather just choosing the child safe versions and leaving the rest to the web and the free market?
Interesting article, despite the flame bait headline.
(note: I will be adding to my ignore list those who flame or troll me)
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2...r-your-health/
After reading his whole tripe, the point I get he was trying to make was it's not a good thing to place all your eggs in one basket. To develop the same app across multiple devices and chiefly on web browsers to avoid the censorship or business conflicts that could arise with apps being controlled by the device maker.
GoogleVoice App is a prime example, it's allowed on many smart phones, but removed from the App Store. But now there is a GoogleVoice web browser version for iPhones, but the damage has already been done.
And we know about the recent cleanup of racy apps on the App Store too, despite what your opinion is about racy apps, it's still a investment by a business or person that was suddenly nipped prematurely after first being allowed.
So this guy is saying, since one doesn't know what Apple (or anyone other device maker) is going to censor next on their stores, it's better to develop apps to run on web browsers, gaining the widest possible audience, then take your chances with device makers stores.
I think this a good approach, Apple seems to want to keep their App Store a pristine environment for children, the most apps sold are games and the iPod Touch is mostly a gaming device.
Far as I know, most games require more than what them running inside a browser can deliver. So they have little other choice. (could it be that Apple isn't allowing Flash because that would shift games to the web instead?)
Also using iTunes to research the over 100,000 apps available is not a very smooth process as it could be and I can't find a easy way to browse all the apps on Apple's web site neither. Perhaps that is by design, perhaps Apple doesn't want to micromanage 1,000,000 apps on their App Store, rather just choosing the child safe versions and leaving the rest to the web and the free market?
Interesting article, despite the flame bait headline.
Comments
You would have to block yourself for trolling. Looking further in the Threads, this topic has been covered at least three or four times now. Apple is not trying to control the media. It is their company to do as they please with their products. If you don't like it don't buy anything from them.
As far as Google is concerned, you need to realize that there must be a balance. iChat is Apple's gem. There will be an iChat app. for the iPhone and iPad if not already made. Apple is trying to make money here not give out free handouts for their own prosperity.
GoogleVoice App is a prime example.....
Yes it is. It's a really useful app that doesn't need Apple's approval and doesn't need Flash.
Steve Jobs actively recommended developers start building web apps nearly three years ago. So what exactly is your point?
Steve Jobs actively recommended developers start building web apps nearly three years ago. So what exactly is your point?
My point is Apple may be deliberately censoring apps after the fact and creating instability to push developers to start building web apps like you said.
No Flash, so what else is there that can create a iPhone app experience within a web browser?
My point is Apple may be deliberately censoring apps after the fact and creating instability to achieve that.
No Flash, so what else is there that can create a iPhone app experience within a web browser?
Please read the Threads concerning the reasons why Flash is not viable for the iPhone or iPad. Apple is not as you put it... "deliberately censoring apps after the fact and creating instability to achieve that." Apple is uniquely theirs and to do what they want with what ever Apps go on their systems. Children come first. They do not condone Porn and XXX rated theme apps. If you want shit that is like that then masterbate on a PC in the privacy of your own bedroom. Your comments are unneeded for this forum.
Its context is in terms of corporate presence, and other areas for which it would be appropriate to have a web page or web app instead of an app. Obviously anything that requires use of device specific hardware (multi-touch, camera, accelerometer, GPS) doesn't apply. Also anything where network lag would create a significant response problem (most games) wouldn't apply either.
That said, I have seen apps on the app store where the developer should have taken the author's advice and created a web app or web page instead. The only problem is, that half the devices that use the iPhone OS right now do not have cellular data access.
You see, people who are creating apps for the iPhone aren't just creating apps for the iPhone. They are creating apps for the iPod Touch just as well, and as recent statistics have shown, iPod Touch owners spend a lot more time (and probably money) on apps than iPhone users do.
It was not really a bad article, but it doesn't mean what you think it means (OP).
Its context is in terms of corporate presence, and other areas for which it would be appropriate to have a web page or web app instead of an app. Obviously anything that requires use of device specific hardware (multi-touch, camera, accelerometer, GPS) doesn't apply. Also anything where network lag would create a significant response problem (most games) wouldn't apply either.
That said, I have seen apps on the app store where the developer should have taken the author's advice and created a web app or web page instead. The only problem is, that half the devices that use the iPhone OS right now do not have cellular data access.
You see, people who are creating apps for the iPhone aren't just creating apps for the iPhone. They are creating apps for the iPod Touch just as well, and as recent statistics have shown, iPod Touch owners spend a lot more time (and probably money) on apps than iPhone users do.
Very good points, so the web based approach isn't really the cure all if it can't access certain hardware features of the devices or save itself on a device to be used offline.
Is there a method around this?
No Flash, so what else is there that can create a iPhone app experience within a web browser?
If you compare Google Mail - delivered as a Web App on the iPhone versus a conventional Mail client - you might notice there isn't much difference. In some regards the Web app is superior.
Web applications can take advantage of many of the iPhone features.
The only specific functionality that is missing from that is games. And although it is possible to write games on Flash - the way Flash works is really bad for mobile platforms. It is both inefficient, and often relies on mouse, keyboard and mouse-over events to work.
Apple are heavily backing HTML 5 which gives developers the opportunity to create rich much richer Web content - but with the advantage of an API designed to work on mobile devices.
C.
Apple are heavily backing HTML 5 which gives developers the opportunity to create rich much richer Web content - but with the advantage of an API designed to work on mobile devices.
So with HTML 5, would it be possible to download a app to a iPhone, Touch or iPad without having to go through the App Store?
Use the hardware features of the device?
So with HTML 5, would it be possible to download a app to a iPhone, Touch or iPad without having to go through the App Store?
Use the hardware features of the device?
Question is, will HTML 5 be ready by the end of this month, or will this be an on going project.
So with HTML 5, would it be possible to download a app to a iPhone, Touch or iPad without having to go through the App Store?
Use the hardware features of the device?
Yes. But you don't have to wait for HTML5
We already have a ton of web-apps on the iPhone. And they can take advantage of the GPS, hardware scrolling, core-animation - and a bunch of other HW features.
The app store came second. Remember?
Take a look at some:
http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html
C.
Yes. But you don't have to wait for HTML5
We already have a ton of web-apps on the iPhone. And they can take advantage of the GPS, hardware scrolling, core-animation - and a bunch of other HW features.
The app store came second. Remember?
Take a look at some:
http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html
C.
How do I use web apps on my iPod Touch when I don't have an available wifi connection?
How do I use web apps on my iPod Touch when I don't have an available wifi connection?
Some web apps make use of local storage.
For instance the iPhone User Guide web app. Once it runs, it installs itself in a local cache.
It works in Flight-Safe mode!
C.
Some web apps make use of local storage.
For instance the iPhone User Guide web app. Once it runs, it installs itself in a local cache.
It works in Flight-Safe mode!
C.
.Mac is what we should be talking about when it comes to cloud storage.
If they were the only option around, and abusing their monopoly power, then sure, it would be a bad thing. But right now there is tremendous competition and consumers have choice. The singly managed app distribution channel has actually led to increased choice and competition. This is despite some apps being rejected. In reality, we've witnessed a developer gold rush and unparalleled consumer satisfaction.
Open vs closed distribution models aren't inherently good or bad. The rule of thumb has generally been that open is better. But that is simply because it is frequently the best means to achieve the true goal, producing a net good effect amongst all parties involved. But competition or open systems aren't an end goals in and of themselves.
Here's an analogy from the real world...
How many competing emergency response systems (such as 911) should each city have? Is freedom and competition always good?
My answer is no. But certainly we should keep an eye on apple, lest they abuse their power to such an extent that the managed app distribution model ends up producing net bad. Seriously, would it be preferable to have competing 911 systems in every city?
Another analogy...
Fire protection. There used to be competing fire departments. You had to choose a fire department and pay for protection.
To reiterate, competition isn't inherently good and isn't an end goal. It is merely an intermediate step to a true goal. To achieve the highest level of net good, it is better to focus on the real goal, an improved experience and price for consumers balanced against the desire of people to run companies in a free manner.
So far... it seems that Apple's model has achieved the highest net good, despite the potential for them to abuse their position as the app distribution gatekeeper.