If the Google-pad runs everything in a Chrome browser, web-apps will be back. The problem with apps is that you can't carry your laptop around with you very easily.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles cell: 310-621-3805 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>wrote: > AppleSoft is the answer. > > What was the question? > > --Doug > > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I think an interesting question is "why are apps better than web-apps?". >> In other words, we were all on the bus that felt the browser was the new >> OS, and that web-apps were the new replacement for "old fashioned" desktop >> apps. But now we find we were wrong, folks preferred apps after all. >> >> Why? What is the evolution we're seeing? After all, wasn't last month's >> discussion about Flash vs HTML/CSS/JavaScript standards? Where in heck did >> these puny little apps (not web-apps) come from? >> >> Is the browser not the OS of the future? Are apps back? Have we lost >> platform-independence? >> >> What's going on?! :) >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> On May 31, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Saul Caganoff wrote: >> >> The paragraph before your quote is pretty interesting too. Interesting >> tension between developers who want to monetize their apps and consumers who >> want everything free. Perhaps the App Store model is a good compromise where >> $2.99 is close enough to free to suit everyone. >> >> Apple prefers the app model for two big reasons. First, it makes their >> products stickier, since you’re not just buying an iPad, you’re buying >> Apple’s whole system for delivering stuff onto the iPad. Second, it seems >> that people are willing to pay for apps while they are unwilling to pay for >> anything through a browser. So people will pay $1.99 for an app that plays >> some game when you can already play the same game for free on a web site >> somewhere. Maybe people think of apps as standalone objects that have some >> value and that they can buy, while they see web sites just as destinations >> that they go to and that should be free. But as long as people will pay for >> apps, that means that Apple can make money by selling them to you — and by >> preventing developers from selling them to you directly. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 01/06/2010, at 5:59 AM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: >> <http://baselinescenario.com/2010/05/30/personal-computing-apple-google-2/> >> http://baselinescenario.com/2010/05/30/personal-computing-apple-google-2/ >> >> - Sent using Google Toolbar >> >> Apple wants to be the new Microsoft. It wants you to buy applications that >> run locally on your computer iPad, and it sees its competitive advantage >> as having the most developers and the most applications (hence all those >> “there’s an app for that” ads). As Microsoft showed, if you can get a lead >> and become the developers’ platform of choice, you can benefit from network >> effects. ... >> >> In April, Apple changed the >> terms<http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler>of >> the iPhone developer agreement to prevent developers from using >> cross-compilers to create iPhone apps. A cross-compiler is a tool that >> allows you to take an application you wrote for one platform, push a button, >> and repackage the application for another platform (in this case, iPhone >> OS). The immediate target of this was Adobe, which was developing a tool >> that would enable developers to take Flash apps, push a button, and make >> them into iPhone apps. This simplest explanation for this is that Apple, as >> the market leader, wants to make it* harder* for people to develop for >> multiple platforms at the same time. “Write once, run anywhere” — the slogan >> of Java, but also the essence of developing for the web — is *bad* for >> Apple, and they want to make it as hard as possible. (John >> Gruber<http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331>makes >> a different argument that Apple wants control over their platform and >> doesn’t want cross-compilers between it and the developers, but that >> interpretation is not inconsistent with mine.) In other words, if you’re >> number one, then openness just helps the competition, because if developers >> have to choose just one platform, they’re going to choose yours. >> >> So Apple is competitive; we knew that already. And they don’t want to >> repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s; we knew that already, too. But I >> think the important point is that they are promoting a model of personal >> computing where most of the developers write for the iPhone OS, and if you >> want to use their applications you have to buy an Apple hardware product. >> >> >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
