Zuckerberg: It was a mistake to go HTML 5 instead of native for mobile
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
-
I don't know if is for that or something else but I've said it more than once that Facebook is the worse app I have on my phone. Comunities appart, G+ app is just fabulous... shame no one's there! :)
AlexCode wrote:
Comunities appart, G+ app is just fabulous... shame no one's there!
Yep, same problem with Skype vs. VSee. I vastly prefer the latter, but no-one uses it so I am stuck with the former.
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
I think HTML 5 is a pipe dream. The majority of applications don't need to run on every form factor. The majority of applications aren't wanted on every form factor. The majority of applications cannot be useful on a 3 inch and a 17 inch screen without one or both presentations suffering. It doesn't matter what you add to the standard - asking any one application to handle a 17 inch screen and a 3 inch screen, a keyboard, a mouse, and touch is ridiculous from the outset. The HTML hoopla is marketing and nothing more than an attempt to sell a bloated, ridiculous development stack. The average consumer is going to want to spend money on an application optimized for their particular hardware - the phrase "It runs everywhere" doesn't make a difference to a guy who only has a tablet or phone. Most people don't own "everywhere" - or use different form factors for different applications.
-
I think HTML 5 is a pipe dream. The majority of applications don't need to run on every form factor. The majority of applications aren't wanted on every form factor. The majority of applications cannot be useful on a 3 inch and a 17 inch screen without one or both presentations suffering. It doesn't matter what you add to the standard - asking any one application to handle a 17 inch screen and a 3 inch screen, a keyboard, a mouse, and touch is ridiculous from the outset. The HTML hoopla is marketing and nothing more than an attempt to sell a bloated, ridiculous development stack. The average consumer is going to want to spend money on an application optimized for their particular hardware - the phrase "It runs everywhere" doesn't make a difference to a guy who only has a tablet or phone. Most people don't own "everywhere" - or use different form factors for different applications.
But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used? If you only focus on native apps, you will probably end up supporting just a few platforms, leaving out a lot of potential users, which would be more than happy to have "just" an HTML5 app.
I won’t not use no double negatives.
-
But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used? If you only focus on native apps, you will probably end up supporting just a few platforms, leaving out a lot of potential users, which would be more than happy to have "just" an HTML5 app.
I won’t not use no double negatives.
I'd agree that is the point of HTML. I think it's terribly mis-directed. If you'd like give me an example of an application that would work just fine on a 3" screen, a 17" screen, and a 42" screen all while handling a keyboard, mouse, touch screen and XBOX 360 controller (something more than a video player) I'd find your argument more compelling. I'm talking a theoretical application here - it doesn't have to actually exist. What I find difficult to swallow is the idea that some glorious standard is going to make all that possible while previous versions of the standard couldn't get a web page to render the same way in different browsers running on the same hardware and the same OS. Think about that for a moment - same hardware/same OS still doesn't work and yet they are reaching for something so far above and beyond that. And that is the big problem. When I go to spend $$$$ on applications I'm going to want something that is optimized in every way to work on the device I'm using. I don't want to play Left 4 Dead on my phone and I don't want to keep a contact list on my Xbox and I don't want to use Excel on my iPad. People who think that they need that are known as 'tools'.
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
Gee. Seems to me that all of a sudden the concept of WPF/Silverlight with MVVM where can create different front ends (Views) for the same ViewModel makes sense. Create a different front end for different environments, but can keep all the plumbing
-
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
-
But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used? If you only focus on native apps, you will probably end up supporting just a few platforms, leaving out a lot of potential users, which would be more than happy to have "just" an HTML5 app.
I won’t not use no double negatives.
Philip F. wrote:
But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used?
But, like every pipe dream of this sort before it (see: Java), it restricts you to the lowest common denominator. Native still rules for performance and features on every platform for any app that isn't a static webpage. The end user doesn't give a toss if the developer had to have 18 code branches to keep up with it all, which you always end up doing with these "run everywhere" ideas anyway.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
-
I'd agree that is the point of HTML. I think it's terribly mis-directed. If you'd like give me an example of an application that would work just fine on a 3" screen, a 17" screen, and a 42" screen all while handling a keyboard, mouse, touch screen and XBOX 360 controller (something more than a video player) I'd find your argument more compelling. I'm talking a theoretical application here - it doesn't have to actually exist. What I find difficult to swallow is the idea that some glorious standard is going to make all that possible while previous versions of the standard couldn't get a web page to render the same way in different browsers running on the same hardware and the same OS. Think about that for a moment - same hardware/same OS still doesn't work and yet they are reaching for something so far above and beyond that. And that is the big problem. When I go to spend $$$$ on applications I'm going to want something that is optimized in every way to work on the device I'm using. I don't want to play Left 4 Dead on my phone and I don't want to keep a contact list on my Xbox and I don't want to use Excel on my iPad. People who think that they need that are known as 'tools'.
I agree you, but...
MehGerbil wrote:
give me an example of an application that would work just fine on a 3" screen, a 17" screen, and a 42" screen all while handling a keyboard, mouse, touch screen and XBOX 360 controller
Probably a "Hello World" app would do it if you use any of the proposed interfaces to exit the app. :rolleyes:
[www.tamautomation.com] Robots, CNC and PLC machines for grinding and polishing.
-