> it already attracts millions of developers because it's the suggested language to develop iOS apps in
Which I pointed out isn't always a good thing. You know how Rails kind of overshadows Ruby because so much use of Ruby is related to rails? Well I think swift will face the same exact fate. I'm not interested in developing iOS frontends or iOS backends in the language. I firmly believe Web will win, and I believe it's going to happen sooner than most people do.
And I firmly believe that Google, Apple, and Microsoft are scared shitless of that idea. Why do you guys think we've seen such a recent renaissance in programming language development and availability? From the years 2000 -> 2010, what did these companies put out? Microsoft had .NET, just as they have since the dawn of time. As far as I can google, it seems that Google put out absolutely nothing. Apple revived Objective-C. Absolutely no progression or innovation whatsoever.
Cut to the last 5 years. Microsoft is dabbling in functional programming in the form of F#...in spite of the fact that their developers are in enterprise and presumably have no interest in this voodoo functional programming. Just in these past few months, they released Visual Studio and .NET on Unix! Meanwhile Apple's making Swift, a language that is simple enough to be used by hipster Apple developers who make iOS apps but also complex enough to have some decent functional elements. Google develops Golang and Dart? They decided to go with Java for android, but now they're interested in spending money developing languages with names on them like Rob Pike and Ken Freakin' Thompson?
Ballmer has been quoted as calling linux "cancer". Now Microsoft is hosting linux VMs for cheap and paying people to develop tools for unix users. When apple launched the iPhone in 2007, they had only 8.1% of the PC market, and yet they opted to risk the success of the iPhone in exchange for maintaining a closed ecosystem and require iOS developers own a mac instead of providing development tools for Windows. Now, when that risk turns out to have paid off and they have a dedicated community of developers, they're suddenly deciding multiplatform support for Swift is important?
Web is winning.
What happens when we can make our apps with ReactJS and cut Google out of their android adsense money because it's just a webview? What happens when we can make our apps with ReactJS and suddenly the iPhone advantage is nil because every app is available on every device and they look exactly the same on every device? What happens when we interact with computers solely through the web and mobile, and Windows continues to lose PC marketshare and maintain their pathetic 2.5% with Windows Phone?
This is embrace, extend, extingush at it's purest. Microsoft wants you developing on their languages using their tools because they know that .NET isn't really licensed under free licenses, and since that means they control where applications run best, they hope they can outperform web and get developers on their platform. It's certainly a stretch, but they're scared.
Apple is operating on the same principle, but theirs is actually permissively licensed. It makes no difference, you can be sure that Swift will be most conveinent for iOS and OSX developers. It's a first class product for Apple devices, but they say they want the community to help them provide support for other devices? Have fun relying on that.
I don't have Google totally figured out. Their goal is probably to bring Golang to android. They're investing in providing a very unified Android experience enhanced strongly by the power of Google Now and their google services, just look at recent android releases. If I can write a backend in golang, host it on google services, and write the client side in go as well, it's a very attractive environment. To be honest, when it comes to Google, I have more faith that they can, sometimes, act altruistically. I don't think Go was an altruistic action, but look at how they give back to open source via GSoC. No one else does anything close. The only big name I think is better than Google is Mozilla.
Speaking of Mozilla, why do you think they're developing Rust and Servo, with lots of experimental rendering techniques? They're betting on web and at being the best at it.
TL;DR: They're giving you new languages and development environments because they are holding on for dear life, and I'm not willing to accept being charmed into closed development environments. The state of tech is a direct result of truly free software that is dictated by the community and the community only. Accept nothing less.
If you mean "everything but HTML-based web sites", that's accurate. If you mean the actual Web sites, I really don't see it. The Web is huge, so isn't exactly dying, but it certainly isn't winning.
Native mobile is "winning", in terms of being usually a far superior UX, and by sheer numerical demand. Native still often (thankfully) uses architectural elements of the web (URIs and HTTP) and the UX of Hyperlinking. But the HTML web as we know it hasn't kept up well with the native experience. With the massive investments in IoT being laid down along with VR/AR experiences coming out of Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, this trend will likely only continue, unless someone releases a new innovative hypermedia format & client that catches on.
"They're giving you new languages and development environments because they are holding on for dear life, and I'm not willing to accept being charmed into closed development environments."
I applaud your commitment to openness, truly, but I suggest you need to look at the global market little harder. These companies are not holding on for dear life. They're growing in power. I watched the WWDC Keynote. The crowd just about had kittens when they announced Swift will be open sourced. Twitter nearly exploded. These are anecdotes yes, but the numbers are backing Swift's meteoric rise.
Apple has a vested interest to promote Swift far and wide, perhaps even going so far as Sun did with Java, with the hindsight of their mistakes. Whereas Google could have done this with Golang but seem to be keeping a lid on it for unknown reasons. Best theory I have is that Apple is a product company and Google is a technology company. Golang is making good headway as a server-side language mainly by several companies that aren't Google.
> Native mobile is "winning", in terms of being usually a far superior UX, and by sheer numerical demand.
Yeah?
I could type a URL to anything here, and you could view it.
If instead hide my content behind an app, I can't deep link to it. The likelihood of you installing the app to see the content is way lower. You need space on your mobile device to install my app. Potentially a password entered to install it. It needs to be compatible with your device. You need to approve my permissions. The content of my app isn't searched in any search engine. You can't bookmark where you were.
I'm not at all convinced that native mobile has "far superior UX." Sure, aspects of it, no question.
And sheer numerical demand? Again, I'm not so sure. Actually, I'm quite sure you're wrong.
Why would I prefer to type a URL? I can just as easily get an URL for the app in ap store and have it right there.
Having app stored on my device is an advantage, unless you like your web apps download in full even on crappy mobile connection. And you really want the content of your app indexed by external search engine?
I like being able to control the permissions my app has. Or does your web app not ask for the permission to use your location, camera, microphone?
I don't need to bookmark where I were in the app: I open it and I am there at once.
You don't want to type URLs, especially on mobile, but the fact that all the items on the home page of HN are links to web pages and not to screens inside apps should hint to a definitive advantage of the web over apps. And to why having a web site is mandatory and having an app is optional.
If the web and apps where in the same competition I'd say the Web can't lose, but I don't believe they compete. They serve different purposes with some overlaps (think Google Docs, the web site and the apps).
You can just click on URLs if I type them. Maybe if you go to your local library, someone can give you a demonstration of how the internet works.
> I can just as easily get an URL for the app in ap store and have it right there.
You're ignoring the deep-linking I'm talking about. Not just the app (like cnn.com), but to actual CONTENT on it, like some specific story.
> Having app stored on my device is an advantage, unless you like your web apps download in full even on crappy mobile connection.
Web Apps can store most of their content in your browser, now. So additional views are not downloading the full app.
> And you really want the content of your app indexed by external search engine?
Yeah, I really want content I produced to be indexed by search engines, so users can actually find it. Not 100% of the time, sure, but I'm in control of that. Explain to me how I can possibly get a search engine to index my content if it IS in an app?
> I don't need to bookmark where I were in the app: I open it and I am there at once.
If you want multiple bookmarks, then no, what you're saying isn't remotely true. If you want to share a bookmark, no, this isn't possible.
Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?
It depends what the app is for. If it's for viewing content over HTTP then yes a native app probably is a dumb idea (unless the platform has wildly different browser capabilities, like on Android - you never know what you're going to get so have to write a dumb website).
However, if the app is for something useful (and not just a content viewer) then native is far superior.
If I go to redfin.com on my phone vs the native redfin app, there is a distinct difference in UX. The native app by far surpasses the mobile app in terms of performance and usability.
Now this is one example but can be said for many sites whose functionality isn't just to display static content.
I am a huge proponent of the web architecture, I just think HTML is dying from the politicization of the standards process and resulting slow pace of innovation.
"If instead hide my content behind an app, I can't deep link to it. "
This is not true. I enter a URL into my iPhone's Safari, it deep links into the App associated with the domain. We just watched a WWDC keynote that showed plenty of deep linking between apps, from Siri, etc.
"The likelihood of you installing the app to see the content is way lower..."
This is also contrary to the data - people love apps, download and use apps like mad. Over $100 billion in revenue is expected to be from mobile apps this year. That's bigger than Hollywood box office 3x, bigger than book publishing 10x, bigger than PC software. The only thing it doesn't eclipse is packaged/server software yet.
Installing and using apps is demonstrating to be less effort than using the web on a mobile device: I have to do it once, vs. have to deal with a slow web browser every time I use the website.
This isn't to say people don't use the web on their phones, it's that if an app is available, people will pick the app.
"Potentially a password entered to install it... You need to approve my permissions"
Same on any website I have to sign up with via form or OAuth2.
And if an app has in-app purchases, I do none of that (just sign in on the store or use my thumbprint).
"The content of my app isn't searched in any search engine. You can't bookmark where you were."
That's interesting, most of the apps I use are searchable in the app, or on the Web. That doesn't mean I'm using a web browser to do most of the interactions.
Again, I don't think the Web is going away, just that HTML is becoming the new command prompt. That might change if something awesome comes out via open hypermedia. Doesn't look like it though... given how rich experiences are getting and how political the HTML standards process is.
"And sheer numerical demand? Again, I'm not so sure. Actually, I'm quite sure you're wrong."
By what measure? I mean, I don't claim infallibility here, I'm just saying that (a) mobile smartphones are quickly becoming the most common device on the planet, more common than a toothbrush, car, or toilet, (b) all of these support apps, (c) almost every company with a service or content has an app, (d) almost every user will prefer an app over over an website, and (e) thus almost all the money spent on consumer software is moving to native mobile. I'm following the money and the usage figures..
> We just watched a WWDC keynote that showed plenty of deep linking between apps, from Siri, etc.
True, apps are beginning to figure this out. But in general, I can easily share a link to any web page. Sharing a deep link into some content in some app is nowhere near a "solved problem."
> This is also contrary to the data - people love apps, download and use apps like mad.
Really? If I share a link to a CNN or HN article, you're less likely to view that? I don't think you're remotely correct. It depends on the kinds of content, I guess. I'm just saying there are cases where web wins huge.
> Same on any website I have to sign up with via form or OAuth2.
Yes, each of us is inventing situations where the other is wrong. But I think you agree with my fundamental premise there are times when the web utterly destroys apps.
> I'm following the money and the usage figures.
I'm sitting here typing to you on ycombinator.com. After spending time on reddit.com. facebook.com. plus.google.com. cnn.com. Yup, there are apps versions of those, but I sit at my desk for 8-10 hours a day, and my desktop experience is WAY better than my mobile experience...
I'm not saying web is better, I'm saying web is better at some things, still.
"Really? If I share a link to a CNN or HN article, you're less likely to view that? I don't think you're remotely correct. It depends on the kinds of content, I guess. I'm just saying there are cases where web wins huge."
I didn't say I would be less likely to view the link if t was a website, nor would most people avoid it. The web architecture (linking) is alive and well.
I'm saying that many websites have an app link at the top of their content once I click it and if I found myself visiting that site often i would click "Get" and grab it.
Then future links would not open my browser, they'd open the app.
"I'm sitting here typing to you on ycombinator.com. After spending time on reddit.com. facebook.com. plus.google.com. cnn.com."
Right - my habit for many years as well. But IME most people use app versions of those sites on a mobile device (except HN - and the UX suffers for it)
"Yup, there are apps versions of those, but I sit at my desk for 8-10 hours a day, and my desktop experience is WAY better than my mobile experience..."
Here we fundamentally disagree. The mobile experience FAR exceeds the desktop experience for most casual computing tasks. I use my phone and iPad way more than my laptop for reading and replying; I use my laptop more for coding and system administration.
Right. The web was originally meant for, and is still intended for HTML document sharing. Thankfully, HN is a basic, sensible site that doesn't cause cancer of the eye. Let most web developers around it and it would be.
That said, as the parent suggested, when it comes to opening my Gmail via Safari or the app, like everything beyond a simple document- I'm going to pick the app everytime.
That will change soon with Windows 10. If you're on Linux you have no choice. And if you personally had to maintain Gmail on the web, you couldn't do it yourself. Enormous time put into an application such as Gmail. So suggesting you'd build Gmail on the web vs an app is disingenuous to suggest. It's quite an edge case for many reasons.
If I had to personally maintain GMail app, I couldn't do it myself, either. I don't see how this is remotely relevant.
I'm not suggesting I'd build GMail one way or another. I'm saying that since GMail web is available to me on my desktop, where I spend the majority of my day, that's how I prefer to use it. It's nice to also have an app, but that's way less percent of my time. And I think reading and typing in GMail is way nice on my desktop.
Sure, it's an edge case, but so is Reddit, so is HN, so is G+, so is Facebook, so is CNN, so is Github, so is StackOverflow, so is xkcd, so is news.google.com...
I spend way more time on those sites on my desktop than I ever would in their corresponding apps.
Add all those edge cases up, not to mention all the websites those things link to, and it's a HUGE part of my day. Apps? Sure. I like em.
And sure, when I'm on mobile, any given content is probably nicer in an app. But sharing, mixing, quickly browsing... web wins hand-down for me.
I wouldn't even know how to take a page from my CNN app (unless they give me a web URL) and discuss it on my Reddit app. Do you?
Again you're back to what we've already established the web is ideal for. It's original intended purpose- simple document sharing. It's been doing this since the early 90s.
While sharing info on Wikipedia is great, where the web fails is competing with native apps. Other than sharing HTML text documents (and there are projects working to replace that too), it doesn't get chosen over native apps.
Also, I'd still say that you'd come a lot closer to being able to maintain a Gmail-style app on iOS, than you ever could on the web. As a 1 man operation. Plenty of people actually do personally maintain email native apps alone on mobile. But unless you go with basic HTML or little to no features, I don't think 1 person is keeping a web email client up to date for all browsers, all the time.
The reason you prefer using webapps on the desktop, is simply because that's where you are all day. At a desk. If you were in anything but a desk job, it'd be the complete opposite. It's not an issue of superiority, it's a matter of convenience. For most people, that convenience is flipped and the experience is equal or better. Which is why native apps are winning.
I just said iOS as an example. I didn't mean to make it appear I was stacking the deck, you could use Xamarin and target all platforms if you wanted. That's still easier than supporting all browsers over time. All browsers over time with a complex app like Gmail? Forget it.
But the issue I was trying to convey is that you're an edge case and in an increasingly marginal pool as time goes on. Most people aren't sitting at the computer all day, and even if they do (we'll say so for sake of argument), they stay off personal email at work (a good idea). And they use their phone yet still.
That's what I do. I'm at a desk all day as well, and never login to personal stuff on my work network/machine. That's where iOS gets its use.
for many of those, they're not apps they're websites. Apps are for repeat use of aomething more complicated than reading documents. Usually websites with a lot of JavaScript are better off as apps.
LinkedIn I have an app, and it's usually better than the website except for some features they maddeningly haven't carried over. Dice too. The rest I would use a website.
This isn't contradictory to my point that apps are the future of how we interact with the web. In effect apps are about a proliferation of user agents - rather than a single hugely popular type of user agent (the browser) and a handful of busy singular agents (the crawler). I am not saying the Web is going away, I'm saying HTML browsers are becoming relatively less important. They're not going away they're just not where the money and growth is.
Sorry, but you are too deep in your illusion. Your TL;DR is funny.
How will you then explain dozens of JS frameworks coming out every day? The web holding to it's dear life?
Please, stop talking about the things you know nothing about. Or at least give native development a honest try and see for your self, that web is not winning anything, and web apps are just a huge pile of mess.
Or for a start just try to make the app with ReactJS which looks the same on every device. Good luck.
Which I pointed out isn't always a good thing. You know how Rails kind of overshadows Ruby because so much use of Ruby is related to rails? Well I think swift will face the same exact fate. I'm not interested in developing iOS frontends or iOS backends in the language. I firmly believe Web will win, and I believe it's going to happen sooner than most people do.
And I firmly believe that Google, Apple, and Microsoft are scared shitless of that idea. Why do you guys think we've seen such a recent renaissance in programming language development and availability? From the years 2000 -> 2010, what did these companies put out? Microsoft had .NET, just as they have since the dawn of time. As far as I can google, it seems that Google put out absolutely nothing. Apple revived Objective-C. Absolutely no progression or innovation whatsoever.
Cut to the last 5 years. Microsoft is dabbling in functional programming in the form of F#...in spite of the fact that their developers are in enterprise and presumably have no interest in this voodoo functional programming. Just in these past few months, they released Visual Studio and .NET on Unix! Meanwhile Apple's making Swift, a language that is simple enough to be used by hipster Apple developers who make iOS apps but also complex enough to have some decent functional elements. Google develops Golang and Dart? They decided to go with Java for android, but now they're interested in spending money developing languages with names on them like Rob Pike and Ken Freakin' Thompson?
Ballmer has been quoted as calling linux "cancer". Now Microsoft is hosting linux VMs for cheap and paying people to develop tools for unix users. When apple launched the iPhone in 2007, they had only 8.1% of the PC market, and yet they opted to risk the success of the iPhone in exchange for maintaining a closed ecosystem and require iOS developers own a mac instead of providing development tools for Windows. Now, when that risk turns out to have paid off and they have a dedicated community of developers, they're suddenly deciding multiplatform support for Swift is important?
Web is winning.
What happens when we can make our apps with ReactJS and cut Google out of their android adsense money because it's just a webview? What happens when we can make our apps with ReactJS and suddenly the iPhone advantage is nil because every app is available on every device and they look exactly the same on every device? What happens when we interact with computers solely through the web and mobile, and Windows continues to lose PC marketshare and maintain their pathetic 2.5% with Windows Phone?
This is embrace, extend, extingush at it's purest. Microsoft wants you developing on their languages using their tools because they know that .NET isn't really licensed under free licenses, and since that means they control where applications run best, they hope they can outperform web and get developers on their platform. It's certainly a stretch, but they're scared.
Apple is operating on the same principle, but theirs is actually permissively licensed. It makes no difference, you can be sure that Swift will be most conveinent for iOS and OSX developers. It's a first class product for Apple devices, but they say they want the community to help them provide support for other devices? Have fun relying on that.
I don't have Google totally figured out. Their goal is probably to bring Golang to android. They're investing in providing a very unified Android experience enhanced strongly by the power of Google Now and their google services, just look at recent android releases. If I can write a backend in golang, host it on google services, and write the client side in go as well, it's a very attractive environment. To be honest, when it comes to Google, I have more faith that they can, sometimes, act altruistically. I don't think Go was an altruistic action, but look at how they give back to open source via GSoC. No one else does anything close. The only big name I think is better than Google is Mozilla.
Speaking of Mozilla, why do you think they're developing Rust and Servo, with lots of experimental rendering techniques? They're betting on web and at being the best at it.
TL;DR: They're giving you new languages and development environments because they are holding on for dear life, and I'm not willing to accept being charmed into closed development environments. The state of tech is a direct result of truly free software that is dictated by the community and the community only. Accept nothing less.