Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple
Did Web-only development fail the iPhone?
A thoughtful post over at FactoryJoe.com asks whether the Web failed the iPhone. Apple's initial decision to support only Web 2.0 third-party apps on the iPhone gave the web-based community a huge shot of creativity and incentive to see how far they could push the iPhone and Safari in terms of delivering a new kind of third party development. Unfortunately the lack of persistent storage and local data, a la Google Gears, crippled the effort. Perhaps Apple's development model was simply a decade ahead of its time.Chris Messina's article calls on Web developers to improve what's going on inside the browser frame by designing and constructing new web primitives that make it simpler and easier to build for the web. He adds that "Steve was right" in that Safari development is the future of application development. If Apple had invested in richer and better Web tools, the outcry for native third party apps might never have taken off.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
WickDC said 1:26PM on 10-19-2007
Why present it as such an either or?? Obviously there's overlap, but there are completely different applications for each that are best made for each. Just as on the desktop.
Take a game like "Five Dice". Could be a true "web app" or native....but I wouldn't be able to play it on the Metro in DC if it were web based, makes much more sense for that to be native.
Then there are native apps for accessing file/data/e-mail services things like that. Great, might be nice, but it's useless without a connection to the web (let's face it, EDGE isn't ideal for this...another variable)....versus a "web app" to access the same thing via Safari. Take something like securely storing passwords and such. There are some true "web apps" out there for it...even with client side JS encryption. All cool...but of course even with that, your data's on someone else's server and you're relying on a connection. Versus a native app like "Lockbox" where it's all on your phone. Different, pluses and minuses to both....not an either or situation.
And last, I think many of the "web apps" out there aren't really "applications", they are just web portals redesigned for the iPhone size, interface, Safari only, and so on. Good and bad for that, but the point is, those wouldn't work native since they are typically access much larger pieces of content, databases, etc. that are online. So there's a difference between using the term "web app" like a game or calculator or something and "web interface".
It seems to me there's room for everything....just like on the desktop, once an SDK it out, people will build what makes sense for that particular need.
Reply
Mitch said 1:29PM on 10-19-2007
The plan was for native apps all along. The web apps were a stop gap measure.
Apple is trying to do many, many things (iphone, new ipods, leopard, etc.) at the same time and they are prioritizing. They are doing a pretty good job but there have been a few speedbumps along the way.
The web didn't fail the iPhone, it is only a piece to the puzzle.
Reply
Lec said 1:33PM on 10-19-2007
Things that were lacking in the web only apps were more to blame. e.g. sound, flash support, etc. Too little, they did not expect a robust developer community clamoring for more. Bad miscalculation by Jobs, and he continues to alienate people with draconian lock policies. I thing the time is right for a fully open alternative to the iPhone.
Reply
Glen said 1:36PM on 10-19-2007
This post and many others before it seem to make the assumption that Apple's decision to release a native SDK was reactionary, rather than planned. I think that's a mistake. Who says that Apple hasn't planned to release an SDK all along, but hadn't developed it enough for public consumption, or worked through the security implications yet. We know that Cupertino remains tight lipped about all releases. I read Steve's letter as "Alright, let me just tell you the plan, so everyone can stop freaking out", rather than "Whoops! Sorry everyone, you were all right, we were wrong, turns out we DO need to make an SDK. We didn't think of that, thanks!!"
Give these guys some credit. They know what they're doing - but not everything is always ready to ship out the door at the moment when Erica or her buddies are ready for it.
Reply
WickDC said 1:40PM on 10-19-2007
@4 Glen: Totally agree!
Reply
TheDukester said 1:54PM on 10-19-2007
Seven new stories so far today, according to my fancy RSS thingie ... and FIVE of them are about the iPhone.
Time to change your name, guys. Ever since Steve showed you that iPhone in January, you've barely reported any Apple news at all.
I'll close with a free hint for you: there's a little thing called "a new operating system" coming out a week from today. It's going to be a pretty big deal. You might want to do some stories on it.
Reply
billp said 1:51PM on 10-19-2007
Shocked and amazed... a series of good posts today from Erica! Excellent.
I don't remember if I found this here -- sorry if this is duplicated... but Daring Fireball has a good related article at http://daringfireball.net/2007/10/tea_leaf_reading
Reply
Neil said 1:46PM on 10-19-2007
I know this is an Apple site and I do like my iPhone, but...
Why the hell did people assume that websites were under some sort of obligation to make stuff work on this thing? It's got what, 1 million handsets in the wild? That's NOTHING compared to the true scale of the web. Why would sites (even those with massive investors or whatever) spend time and money making a site which only a fraction of their users would be able to take advantage of?
The same thing happened - although to a lesser extent - with PSP when it gained web browsing capability. People rushed to make compatible sites and then left them to stagnate.
Reply
Lec said 1:52PM on 10-19-2007
Pa-leezeee, They rushed the thing out there, expecting to capitalize on a great ( yes I admit it ) hardware design but with a dearth of applications. Had a SDK been lurking on the background we would have seen being as soon as some of the home brew apps. came out. Stop apologizing for Jobs, and never give credit for cunning and brilliance where blame should be placed for narrow mindedness and stupidity.
Reply
Frank said 2:03PM on 10-19-2007
i agree with Glen & Mitch (4 & 2, above) -- i'm sure this was the plan all along, and the constant whining in the back seat made steve finally say something to shut us all the hell up until we get there.
Reply
Johnny Thrash said 2:10PM on 10-19-2007
I think they planned on third party apps from the get-go. I believed that from day 1.
I also think they planned the price drop and $100 credit from the get-go. Apple is sneaky.
They keep releasing more and more features. The more stuff they add, the more people will buy. The more frenzy they create, the more people talk and the more people buy.
They have a business plan for this phone. They didn't take 2 years to develop this phone to release it willy-nilly into the fray.
It was planned and you can bet your ass...ets on it.
Reply
Levi Senft said 2:20PM on 10-19-2007
I think the web has failed all of us as a means to create rich applications. You just cannot create apps with the consistent and reliable user experience as you can on the desktop.
Reply
Chris said 2:23PM on 10-19-2007
An SDK for the iPhone was a planned intent. Announcing the product with mere web support concentrated attention on web application development and drew comparisons with other web browsers on other phones. Thus, another market and another set of developers was borne. Why else would Safari for Windows have been developed?
Now with an SDK - even if we don't know what the SDK is - brings in the other developers.
The result: a greater market for applications. A greater market for the iPhone. If the SDK had been announced at the launch of the iPhone web applications would have been ignored. Masterful.
Reply
tnkgrl said 2:23PM on 10-19-2007
Whine, whine, whine... There's room for both Web-based and native application development on the iPhone - anyone can see that!
Reply
tnkgrl said 2:24PM on 10-19-2007
Whine, whine, whine... There's room for both Web-based and native application development on the iPhone - anyone can see that!
Reply
stuntman said 3:04PM on 10-19-2007
I wouldn't say it's an idea ahead of its time... it's an idea ahead of this phone. I would have gladly taken advantage of the web apps available, except there is no way to iconize them on the springboard. and safari on the iphone is awkward accessing addresses. i don't like to use it except for looking up something specific, i'd never just browse. i'm not going to go into safari every time i want to simply take advantage of an app. not to mention, doing so makes me tethered to the internet to take advantage of an apps services, and if i'm not on wi-fi, i want to tear my hair out waiting on the edge network.
Reply
eryk said 3:17PM on 10-19-2007
Well as someone who recently purchased a smartphone (not iPhone) I would say the biggest hurdle is the EDGE data speeds and the architecture of that web-only plan in general.
They do have a near perfect browser for handling a new generation of mobile web applications, but unfortunately the mobile web seems to mainly still be in beta. With limited speeds it's important to trim the transmission for mobile apps to a minimum. that's why there is a Google Maps app that doesn't download a pound of javascript before it begins running.
If Apple really expected to keep tight control over the included apps, they should have spec-d out the machine and/or gone with a faster network. At the end of the day it's a total waste to be constantly downloading all of the extra bits to present info in HTML, not to mention you should only access the web to find info that isnt easily offered by the handheld. Some mobile apps dont even need to communicate so what sense does that make?
I'd say that the iPhone (esp. safari mobile) is still a boon to the web2.0 community, but the device itself is not going to realize it's potential without the SDK
Reply
Will said 4:51PM on 10-19-2007
What's unfortunate is that Apple wasn't able to provide the ability to download "widgets" developed via Dashcode on day one.
Save for those with bundled Obj-C libs, there's probably very little reason my current Dashboard widgets couldn't be run on the iPhone.
Combining client side widgets with server side web services is a good compromise, as most web sites are bloated with a bunch of markup above and beyond data (notably images). If you were using EDGE for just pure data, the performance of EDGE would be much less noticable I think. (Seriously, how much data is a list of movie listings for example?)
This ability of running current OS X widgets on an iPhone would have met a bulk of the needs of many app developers, even if there wasn't a way to persist data locally (though I think they need that long term).
I would like to hope that when the SDK comes out in Feb, that we'll get an updated Dashcode that will let us one stop design and test iPhone based widgets.
Reply
starkruzr said 8:45PM on 10-19-2007
Ultimately, all web applications depend on stateless, crufty HTTP to get the job done. This is why, for example, AIM on Meebo sucks compared to MobileChat or Apollo.
Reply
bugmat said 7:35AM on 10-20-2007
Baloney. Native apps is where it will always be at.
Reply