One could argue the pros and cons of the mobile application model. If you look at numbers, it would seem that developers and end-users all agree that mobile apps are a great thing. Developers keep churning them out, and end-users keep buying them. Mobile apps are great because they give the user a custom experience that the web couldn't otherwise offer. But then again, a lot of mobile apps are redunant versions of what can be found at certain mobile-friendly websites.
Jim Balsillie, CEO of RIM, recently criticized the app model at the Web 2.0 Summit. Keep in mind that the BlackBerry App World catalog of apps is more than 20 times smaller than what is available in the Apple App Store, so RIM has reason to be defensive of its position (or lack thereof) as an application purveyor.
"We believe that you can bring the mobile to the web,” he said. “You don’t need to go through some kind of software development kit. That’s the core part of our message. You can use your existing development environment."
He's right, but there are many advantages of going through a software development kit. You can gain access to camera controls (the mobile web can't do that), you can access several user databases (the mobile web can't do that), and so on.
On the desktop, the web is less limited than the internet on mobile devices because desktop computers have far greater computing power that can handle all that HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, and the many other web platforms have to offer.
"It is really not about a set of proprietary rules or about "appifying" the web," he said. "The web needs a platform that allows you to use your existing web content, not apps."
Maybe, but we're not there yet. The RIM PlayBook seems well suited to handle existing web content without needing "appified" experiences, but that's one device. Apps are still very much critical for smartphone devices, and they're highly useful on tablets.
via PocketNow
No comments:
Post a Comment