Why does there have to be an app for that?

Re: Why does there have to be an app for that?

There's two simple reasons.

1) Native code is better at some things than HTML (although HTML5+CSS is catching up incredibly rapidly).

2) Having a native app means that it can be controlled centrally via an app store. While HTML apps can be treated the same way, it's a relatively new concept and most devs aren't on-board yet.

Give it time, though. HTML5+CSS+OpenGL has proved to be good enough to play games on, which shows there isn't a lot left that can't be done purely through a browser. And Firefox OS for mobiles has just been released, and that has no unique application format - it runs webapps, which are pretty much usable in any modern browser. Hopefully it'll take off enough to convince developers that the future is webapps and not native apps, except where really necessary.

I try and encourage then by using them where available - I use mobile news sites rather than their native apps, Although most phone functionality can't be dumped onto them yet.

Re: Why does there have to be an app for that?

Hi,

I think it is because there are differences between the screen sizes, and the online services (like Social Media), want to engage the people on their services, which means that people spent more time on them.

To reach that goal, online companies have to redesign their services and optimize its performance to the size of the mobile devices, so the people (users) feels more comfortable with the services (designed as an app) and they invest more time in it.

Finally the online services produce higher revenues and sells more ads to big brands.

Regards

Re: Why does there have to be an app for that?

Money and Control (which = more money).

There are technical considerations for sure but largely it is money. If all apps were implemented in html and accessible via a browser then whats to stop you switching between ecosystems (having to repurchase apps and media can make a huge impact on such a decision). If you could just go to a url then how are apple \ ms \ google going to collect their 30% ? :)

IIRC didn't Apple say that Safari was the only app you should ever need when the iphone originally launched? Or something that that effect? Then they saw the money to be made, and fair game to them they did it well. That and technically there were arguments against 'the web' for both code efficiency and abilities.

I get as annoyed as anyone over the ridiculous 'there's an app for that' sagas when places like banks pour money into apps and leave their web stores relatively poorly tended, especially for mobile users. A great many companies either take advantage of the 'app' phenomena or are taken advantage of by people selling them apps when frankly a decent website would cover all their needs and provide coverage to users of pretty much all ecosystems with one implementation. Never underestimate the power of a good powerpoint presentation to get a bunch of desk warmers to spend money to get home with the downies.

There is also exclusivity, there seems to be a trend of certain companies only supporting one or the other, there are quite a few instances where only the iphone gets the app. Quite possibly because of a higher propensity to buy coupled with a large installed base etc, the cynic in me believe that in the larger cases it is a case of advertising money trades hands for exclusivity.

Technically there are strong arguments, not just over functionality and offline access (although in some instances caching could be used for offline game playing etc) but also control of development.

It would be a great to see a wave of well coded sites replacing badly coded apps for stuff like banks, airlines etc. It wouldn't take up as much space on phones, especially lower end or older phones and they could devote all their funding to one implementation. They wouldn't have to replace apps, just refocusing away from having an app for the sake of it.

FWIW I apologise in advance if any of the above seems biased towards any ecosystem, I really don't care for any one system over another and given my own way I would probably still be on Windows Mobile!

Re: Why does there have to be an app for that?

You are right. It is generally stupid. Most of them also seem to use 'net connections for no good reason, check the transfer numbers on Android. I would expect iOS is similar, although not so easy to check.

Really wonder why some of the programs transfer anything, the 'cute and sweet battery and memory optimizer' I enjoy transferred a few thousand bytes, maybe just because I put the widget on the screen.

Interestingly, it did not vanish altogether when it became a former product.

It is also interesting how many of the programs that don't need to, transfer something. I am going to block all of them and see how many still work next time I use them.

I wanted to make my own user topic, it seems to be impossible from a mobile device, how the fuck does one contact the google 'play store' with questions and complaints, they sure do not respond to anything sent to 'feedback'?

Re: Why does there have to be an app for that?

Why is it compulsory to say 'app' and not 'program'? Little known fact, NTT was the first to commercialise mini-Java programs on phones, they are called 'appli', from 'application'.

Jobs noticed that at some stage, stole the idea and word, but contracted the word to the very ugly 'app'.