Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Features, iPhone
iPhone web apps aren't that bad
I have a Treo 650 on AT&Tingular. I use the web lots. (So much, actually, that my phone bill came out to $175 last month because I downloaded so much data. Damn you, Google Maps!) The included browser isn't all that bad: especially when I can tap to mobile versions of my most-frequented sites (m.facebook, or m.twitter, for example).Even with mobile sites, though, and particularly when browsing any-ol' page...well, it's slow.
Crowd: How slow is it?
So slow, OS X's spinning beach ball of death would tire out half way through loading NYT.com!
(Ba dum kish!...?)
Sure, there's a lot of disappointment surrounding Jobs' non-announcement announcement that developers can produce Web 2.0 apps for the iPhone, in place of actual, honest-to-goodness integrated apps a la Apple's own offerings. But Apple's emphasis on the optimization of the web for the iPhone is exactly what the forthcoming iPhone World needs: on AT&Ts paltry EDGE network, how could Apple expect us to fully make use of the full-blown internet via Safari if pages take ages to load?
On stage, Jobs demoed finding showtimes, Googling, and browsing NYT in Safari, but that was on a WiFi network. I want to be able to do all that stuff, quick, on the train, in a waiting room, or in my car (parked...of course), without missing out on the best years of my life. iPhone-specialized web apps are perfect: streamlined, theoretically small, to-the-point taskers designed for quick info-grabbing or management. EDGE-based load-times practically becomes a non-issue. If developers -- big and small -- embrace this, and build apps (like this Digg aggregator, for example) that make the web experience bearable, then gosh-darnit, I'll be satisfied.
And I know: full-blown iPhone apps would've been able to do that, too -- more efficiently, even, eliminating the need to download the interface with each and every load. But then there's the hassle: installing and removing apps; crowding the home screen with small little tools that do little things, that you may use once and never again. And let's not forget -- it wouldn't only be the quality-oriented Mac coders writing apps for the iPhone. We'd see an onslaught of complicated crap, written by amateurs, ruining the beauty of the iPhone experience. Not to mention most developers would rely on the SDK, and the mobile web would be nothing more than an afterthought.
Now we have a slew of widget-like iPhone apps, even major sites jumping on the bandwagon, easily-accessible, bookmarkable, clean, efficient, and perfect for the mobile experience.
How many users in the iPhone target-demographic actually install and use third-party apps on their handsets, smartphone or otherwise? How many of those apps aren't already on the iPhone, and how many are really that important? I rarely bother installing apps -- aside from biggies like Google Maps -- on my Treo, just because most of them wind up useless, clogging space, cluttering the device, and complicating things. No doubt Apple could rectify a lot of that, as it usually does with such problems: but trust of the third-party isn't a Jobsian characteristic -- look at the iPod -- and it's just not reasonable to expect it from Apple right out of the gate.
The idea of web-based apps isn't "perfect," and it certainly limits the phone's true potential. But for the end user it's useful, it's workable, and -- curse these damning words -- it's good enough.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
icruise said 5:48PM on 6-25-2007
One of the iPhone's major appeals is the fact that it has (more or less) a desktop-class browser, so the idea of relying on specially formatted web pages (WAP anyone?) isn't very appealing. In fact, I'm getting flashbacks of the idea of "web clippings" that were used on the Palm VII wireless PDA. The Palm VII couldn't come close to surfing the actual web, and instead had to have data fed to it in tiny bites. So there was a web clipping that allowed you to search amazon or get movie times, etc. Still, these web apps would fit in better with the iPhone's aesthetic and its control scheme, so that's certainly a plus.
I don't expect broadband speeds, but I do hope that it displays things at a tolerable rate and that we won't have to rely totally on web apps like you describe (although they could certainly be useful). I also hope that the iPhone has enough zoom and reformatting options to make viewing real sites possible without horizontal scrolling -- all of the sample sites we've seen on the iPhone seem to have their content in very narrow columns, but how about a site like an online forum with a wide horizontal bar of text?
Reply
Micah Neumark said 5:56PM on 6-25-2007
The main reason I disagree, though only when the iPhone is out will we know for sure:
Speed.
So, say I set up my grocery list in an iPhone webapp. I go to work, and then when I leave at 5pm, I go to the store. First things first. I whip out my iPhone, open Safari, and, go to my Groceries bookmark, and.......
wait....
wait....
wait....
Oh, ok, now its loaded.
Oh wait, I need to change something. *Tap something on screen*
wait....
wait....
wait....
*tap a couple more things to complete*
wait....
wait....
wait....
you see where I'm going. If Apple wants this as a solution, I think they're crazy.
I will be happily corrected if it ends up being quick, but I will be very surpised if I am. I expect it to take a while to load webapps cause of the speed.
Also, while there are many useful apps that can be created for the web, there are many that cannot, such as any app that wants to take advantage of:
accelerometer
camera
direct control of the touch screen
auto-updates (iPhone mail checks for new mail in the background on occasion, what if a dev wanted to make some sort of exchange tie in app, not really possible now)
Reply
jh said 5:58PM on 6-25-2007
It really truly sounds like the RDF is in full play here. If anyone else were doing the application development this way while the OS was "full and complete" on the device, you guys would be falling all over yourselves to point out that Apple would release the whole SDK and take out that pathetic and kludgey method of using Web2.0. Admit it. You would.
Just because it was said doesn't mean it won't suck. I think one problem , one major problem.. that the iPhone has is that it won't have a good market. Sure.. people will line up to buy it.. but how many will keep it?
Reply
Quix said 6:00PM on 6-25-2007
In general, I'm not happy about the lack of third-party support on the iPhone (though I assume it will come eventually).
But you made me realize that iPhone apps would include a flood of craptastic software from Windows developers. *shudder*
Perhaps the "wait and see" approach Apple is taking right now is best after all...
And once they *do* allow third-party apps, they should create an SDK that only works on Macs, thus increasing the platform's user base and filtering out the horrid Windows-esque iPhone apps. It's the perfect plan. :)
Reply
Stephen said 6:07PM on 6-25-2007
Two words: google gears. With this on the iphone many ajax apps will work offline. Also, most ajaxs apps (after initial download) transfer very little information. The real issue with ajax speed is memory and the javascript interpreter.
Reply
Stephen said 6:07PM on 6-25-2007
Oh and for the list example, check out http://www.rememberthemilk.com/ It works offline with google gears.
Reply
Dan Pourhadi said 6:07PM on 6-25-2007
@Micah Neumark -- the goal with the iPhone-designed apps is that they'll be small, and quick-loading, and optimized for the Safari browser so load times will be at an absolute minimum.
@ jh -- Actually, I think many would complain that Apple isn't embracing the "apps of the future", aka Web 2.0, and all the web apps emerging, slowly replacing many desktop apps (Google Docs, Bloglines, etc.).
@ Quix -- I like that plan :D
Reply
Kai Cherry said 6:21PM on 6-25-2007
@5: Gears requires client side support in the form of a plugin. Safari doesn't have this plugin on the phone. There is NO PERSISTENT STORE OUTSIDE of cookies, no Uploading, and no filesystem browsing.
Apple isn't serious about 3rd party support guys. All of the pipedreaming in the world isn't going to change this reality :)
Its not the worse thing in the world, but its not in any way a dev platform that can be *monetized*...so even as far as killer web apps go, you aren't going to see them unless folks suddenly decide they want to pay money for something they can never "own"...let alone the fact that unless there some "unfakeables" that are *very iPhone specific* exist (like beyond user agent), no one will want to do an app that exposes their IP because javascript basically downloads the source code to your computer...its not a compiled binary.
ISVs make software to make money; hobbyists make software for fun. Web 2.0 suffers from the same problem Web 1.0 did...monetizing :)
Reply
adam said 6:22PM on 6-25-2007
I can't value the the opinion of someone that has a phone that was released back in september of 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treo_650
I use the web "lots" as well. BTW, upgrade to a Treo680,700 or 750 and then we'll talk technology.
Reply
Dan Pourhadi said 6:24PM on 6-25-2007
@Kai Cherry -- I think what we're going to see is the same thing that happened with Dashboard: people make the widgets not necessarily for the public, but to make something easier for themselves. Companies do it to promote themselves -- no initial monetary gain, but a residual effect of attracting customers to their main site, etc., once they're back on their computers. Also, it could count as an extra feature -- a website offers an iPhone-version of their services...more reason to use their services.
Reply
Dan Pourhadi said 6:28PM on 6-25-2007
@adam -- you're making the assumption that Palm smartphone software has changed dramatically over the past three years...which, well, it hasn't.
Reply
Kai Cherry said 6:29PM on 6-25-2007
@4, Quix:
Oh, like the iPod games SDK we all just "knew' they were going to release ones the blah blah blah.
Some history:
There used to be an iTunes Device SDK. Apple learned, sadly, that it could not trust devs to put *Apple's* best interests before their own, or the customers the served, and hence, used this SDK to do an end run around iTunes one-way device restrictions....and with the itroduction of the iTMS...this code was doomed forever to file 13.
Hence and sadly, the sdk went away.
iTunes sharing...this was exploited to go beyond the local network. By a developer. A Mac developer.
See the pattern?
Apple is choosing the dubious "security via obscurity" method here...I don't even think *google* has an iPhone SDK; Apple wrote the apps.
Mark my words; you will see an iPhone SDK the day you see an iPod Games one.
Apple will "listen to its customers" and cherrypick what web apps they want to convert into internal ones and release them as they see fit...but thats about it.
Reply
adam said 6:33PM on 6-25-2007
I understand your point Dan and Palm clearly hasn't innovated a great deal as of late (we'll save that for another debate) but I was gawking over the 650 nearly two and a half years ago. Since then I've purchased a Blackberry, RAZR V3i and a Treo700w with the money saved to purchase an iPhone on Friday.
Your post did not reference anything else toward the Treo 650 beyond the first couple of lines and you’re writing style is great but saying you have a phone that was released nearly four years ago only devalues your opinion on technology. I would have at least lied about it.
Great article, great points and I'm sorry to cut you down. Perhaps I'm just being critical.
Reply
Chris said 6:34PM on 6-25-2007
I think there's two reasons why Steve Jobs is not giving out an SDK yet.
1) SJ is paranoid about first impressions of the iPhone, and wants to wait until those impressions are solid before reviewers start complaining that the 3rd party Excel editor has bugs.
2) The SDK is still being developed, or is tied to Leopard (Dashcode?)
In either case, "his Highness" gets the benefit of the doubt from me for four months, before I start making an uproar about it.
And I'll be in Palo Alto, CA this Friday. :)
Reply
Kai Cherry said 6:39PM on 6-25-2007
Dan...
That's what us old-timers remember from the bust...bubble logic :)
You make money selling things. All of the "paradigm shifting methodologies t o enhance your business deliverables" talk in the world won't change this :)
I mean, I guess if people want there iPhone Apps to be like (no offense, really) Weblogs, Inc where 40% of the page is ad content, then yeah.
But its not a Business Plan. Its thee Software *Business* and all of the DHTML+Javascript in the world doesn't change the base realities; to make a profit, you must get more in revenue than your costs, immediate or annualized.
This move pretty much insures that no one makes any money off this platform that didn't pay the R&D for it :)
Take a look at the wayback machine; the web's past is littered with the corpses of companies who had "business plans" with no business :)
So Dan, would you pay as little as $10 for an iPhone say, chat client that did like AOL/Yahoo/MSN, let you use your buddies, had pictures, etc...
that you don't "own"?
"Its the future...straight from 1998!!" ;)
Reply
Dan Pourhadi said 6:47PM on 6-25-2007
@Kai Cherry -- I'm not saying that business model on the iPhone would necessarily work, but people pay all the time for web services. On my Treo, I used an app called VeriChat that I had to pay for every year, which is practically the same concept.
Reply
Taylor Sternberg said 6:50PM on 6-25-2007
I still like phonelauncher.com better than iphoneapplication list. Better reviews, better interface, better everything. iphoneapplicationlist is just ugly.
Reply
Kai Cherry said 7:00PM on 6-25-2007
Dan...
We are talking *consumers here*...ASPs (i think, heheh, 2 out of a 1000) were able to make a bit of coin on vertical apps...but you really aren't taking into account the case for DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!
(Sorry. I could not resist.)
You know, if Apple was even gonna pay for the network traffic then it would be *something*...
Right now, its about as "Sweet!" a solution as (very foul non-family friendly body region's collected perspiration).
You don't see any MacOS X developers touting this much ballyhooed "Sweet" solution for a reason...and believe me, they are getting sick of being lumped in with the RIAA with respect to (ha!) "outdated business models".
They are pointing out that there IS NO Business model....but they are being dishonest about it it by saying they "can't" write "good" apps.
You certainly can write some not-too-shabby Web 2.0 apps...without sound.
Making money on them, is a whole other discussion, and the only people invited to that party are Apple/ATT/Google at this point; Delicious Generation...or anyone else for that matter need not apply.
Reply
Micah Neumark said 7:16PM on 6-25-2007
@Dan: App size solves any bandwidth issues that should arise, but equally important and usually forgotten, is latency. Because EDGE does not have very good latency, it'll take a while for a web server to react to your request for a page (or Web App as the case may be). So even though you think your a great developer because you made your app only 2k for the user to download, it'll still take a while thanks to latency.
Reply
Donald Potter said 7:21PM on 6-25-2007
Sure Google Gears only works with Firefox, but I wouldn't at all be surprised that the cozy relationship Apple has with Google would result in a Google gears port to Safari. Especially considering the recent release of Safari for Windows.
Reply