Comments on: iPhone app? I’d rather not http://www.bearfruit.org/2009/10/05/iphone-app-i039d-rather-not/ Matthew Nuzum's Blog Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:24:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2-bleeding By: Jamu http://www.bearfruit.org/2009/10/05/iphone-app-i039d-rather-not/comment-page-1/#comment-299 Jamu Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-299 I agree with your sentiments on this topic. The iPhone does appear to be a very awesome platform (at least from a user perspective) and Apple has done a great job of ensuring vendor lock-in. I have a question about your proposal to write web applications instead of native applications, though: what about the cost to the user? Here in Canada, data plans are very expensive, so using such an application would have a non-substantial runtime cost. If your application is so unique that no alternative exists then people will probably just suck it up and use it. But if a competitor comes along with a similar product in native form, I suspect your iPhone users will happily pay $2 or $3 for it and migrate away. This feels like a case where focusing on the problems of the developer might actually create a poor experience for users. Though maybe I'm reading too much into this and offline support is enough to work around usage issues...? I agree with your sentiments on this topic. The iPhone does appear
to be a very awesome platform (at least from a user perspective) and
Apple has done a great job of ensuring vendor lock-in. I have a
question about your proposal to write web applications instead of
native applications, though: what about the cost to the user? Here
in Canada, data plans are very expensive, so using such an
application would have a non-substantial runtime cost.

If your application is so unique that no alternative exists then
people will probably just suck it up and use it. But if a
competitor comes along with a similar product in native form, I
suspect your iPhone users will happily pay $2 or $3 for it and
migrate away.

This feels like a case where focusing on the problems of the
developer might actually create a poor experience for users. Though
maybe I’m reading too much into this and offline support is enough
to work around usage issues…?

]]> By: Evan http://www.bearfruit.org/2009/10/05/iphone-app-i039d-rather-not/comment-page-1/#comment-300 Evan Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-300 Native development is not solely a programming choice, there is also a good amount of marketing and purchasing methods to consider There are couple important factor I think you missed about native vs web apps. The app store has visibility. First, users searching for a new "app", are more likely to stumble across it in the less noisy, single purpose app store search. Also, repeated use is eased by automatic creation of "desktop" icons. Second, single payment for an app could not be easier than doing it through the app store, and is virtually impossible by comparison in a web app. It seems like you could get around both of those problems with a frame though. Other than that, I agree that web apps are easier, less evil, and have more longevity than iPhone apps. Native development is not solely a programming choice, there is also a good amount of marketing and purchasing methods to consider

There are couple important factor I think you missed about native vs web apps. The app store has visibility.

First, users searching for a new “app”, are more likely to stumble across it in the less noisy, single purpose app store search. Also, repeated use is eased by automatic creation of “desktop” icons.

Second, single payment for an app could not be easier than doing it through the app store, and is virtually impossible by comparison in a web app.

It seems like you could get around both of those problems with a frame though.

Other than that, I agree that web apps are easier, less evil, and have more longevity than iPhone apps.

]]>