Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jun 2012 15:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 520919
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Unfortunately, sites like Engadget
by moondevil on Wed 6th Jun 2012 08:12
in reply to "Unfortunately, sites like Engadget"
I saw an article yesterday where someone was speculating (or even advocating) that in the future the "web" as we know it would near-dissappear and everyone would use these mini-web apps to access the internet rather than browsers. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to install an "app" for every site I might want to browse.
I am looking forward to this.
Developing web applications just sucks, with the mixture of CSS, HTML, Javascript trying to bend the browser to provide a proper environment across versions and operating systems.
Web applications are just glorified teletypes.
Personally, given the choice, I'll always use native over web applications.




Member since:
2006-07-04
a few years ago began hyping these kinds of numbers as the be-all and end-all, and so app count began being used in lame fanboy wars (see TemporalBeing's post above, for an example).
The sad fact is that a huge portion of mobile apps available for a given platform are garbage, and another huge portion consists of glorified RSS feeds. Some of the latter are actually quite nice (nicer than the corresponding RSS feed, mobile web page, or full web page), but how many of those is a user going to install? I saw an article yesterday where someone was speculating (or even advocating) that in the future the "web" as we know it would near-dissappear and everyone would use these mini-web apps to access the internet rather than browsers. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to install an "app" for every site I might want to browse.
THe current state of things is what you would expect to result from a system where apps sell for zero to five dollars. You get a huge number of cheap garbage or inconsequential fluff.