41–48 of 48 posts
I really hope that the work Mozilla is doing will help move the state of web applications on mobile forward in a way that is portable across all platforms.
I like the idea of this. I wish it was easier to sell the web apps I build, in a way that's as easy as plugging in OpenID. I've looked at a few services that promise this but they either need US a merchant account or something else I don't have/can't get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Local storage is currently limited. On the desktop there will be means for unlimited storage. Manifest files can present more than merely what file to download (such as operating in the background). By setting the apps to a different domain, it gives them room to allow for a different permission set.
If it would become unlimited than nothing would stop my web app from filling your hard drive up with crap. So removing this limit maybe not such a good idea. Besides if Mozilla wanted to provide unlimited storage they could just remove the limit from the HTML5 storage, but they won't for the reason I already wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps Yes, there is. Being able to install a web app locally means several things immediately: 1. Local and remote storage of data beyond what traditional web apps can accomplish. 2. Snappier applications, since everything is stored locally. 3. You'll still be capable of being connected remotely. 4. Ability to use the app even if…
> 1. Local and remote storage of data beyond what traditional web apps can accomplish. We already have HTML5 for that, why would we need yet another method for the same thing? > 2. Snappier applications, since everything is stored locally. Again... this is all possible with HTML5. > 3. You'll still be capable of being connected remotely. 4. Ability to use the app even if you aren't connected, or cannot connect remote…
Aspects of this are limited for security reasons. Changing the location of the application, to treat it as something different, allows for different levels of security.
> Again... this is all possible with HTML5.
Again, to a limited degree for security reasons.
> Show me a recent native app that has the success rate of Facebook or Twitter.
Just look to Apple's App store as a good example. Look at all the native Twitter apps that people used over the web interface.
> A lot of native apps are just interfaces to web apps.
Yes, and why do you think that is? Because being treated as native apps gives them additional flexibility. With browsers able to "install" web apps, they can provide additional functionality to these applications that otherwise couldn't exist.
> With bookmarking them and making the app use HTML5 app cache.
Yes. So at least your aware that what Mozilla is doing isn't new. Apple's done this. Google's done this. Mozilla is following.
Couple this with other benefits:
1. Having a trusted app store where you can get your apps. 2. Allow for an easy system to setup and sell your app. Envato does this. Apple does this. MS is planning on doing this. Google does this. You also make the assumption that developers can easily accept payments. It's not that easy, unless you bow to the will of PayPal. 3. Mozilla not doing this would leave it behind. Suddenly, if people wanted to use these web apps, they'd have to switch off Firefox.
I've presented many reasons why this is a good thing. You've questioned everything, but offered little in the way of why it's bad. Might you care to offer up reasons why this shouldn't happen?
> Ohhh and let's not forget the "native" applications that in reality wrapped web apps.
Huh? Native apps that are just connect to web API's are still native apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a standard identity/payment mechanism which reduces the marginal effort required of a user to create an account and agree to pay, say, $1/month would drive sales? Much like it's easy for Apple/Google app store users to make purchases?
I don't want no payment standard for that, heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service. I may find a service that charges me less than the standard service can offer. Take a look at the Apple App store: 30% for Apple and the Carriers? for what? ain't that a little bit too much? My main point is: mixing financial stuff with technology is simply a dead end.
> I don't want no payment standard for that
Then don't use it. You don't have to.
> heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service.
Then don't use it.
> I may find a service that charges me less than the standard service can offer.
Then use it. Their are other options out there.
> Take a look at the Apple App store: 30% for Apple and the Carriers? for what? ain't that a little bit too much?
CC processing, distribution, and promotion. And an easy way to install apps. Do you find that too much? Than don't develop native apps for iOS.
You can still create web apps, however, and sell them as normal.
> My main point is: mixing financial stuff with technology is simply a dead end.
They aren't mixing it. You can use the technology without the financial stuff. If that's your main point, then it's baseless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm understanding this correctly the competition wouldn't be dev vs dev but store vs store. If that is the case then your app becomes a commodity and each store will try to compete on price, lowering the dev's profit margin in the process.
That's like saying that having more than one grocery store hurts farmers. The farmers choose what price they sell their produce at, and the stores have to choose their own price based on how much profit they need to make on each sale. In other words, nobody will be forcing these developers to be on a particular store -- unlike Apple's App Store, where you have to play on their terms.
If someone could launch a competitor to the Apple App store, and say "I'm going to take half the margin that apple takes from app developers", I think developers would flock to that store, and then so would customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want no payment standard for that, heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service. I may find a service that charges me less than the standard service can offer. Take a look at the Apple App store: 30% for Apple and the Carriers? for what? ain't that a little bit too much? My main point is: mixing financial stuff with technology is simply a dead end.
You've really taken no time to look into this. Your comments are proof. This entire comment is wrong. > I don't want no payment standard for that Then don't use it. You don't have to. > heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service. Then don't use it. > I may find a service that charges me less than the standard service can offer. Then use it. Their are other options out there. > Take a l…
I don't really think you know what I did and didn't do.
> Your comments are proof.
Really?
> This entire comment is wrong.
Baseless.
> Then don't use it. You don't have to.
I was pointing out the problems of the app store model. It has nothing to do with what I have and don't have to do.
I was demonstrating something, so replying "Then don't use it" is superfluous.
> CC processing, distribution, and promotion. And an easy way to install apps. Do you find that too much?
How much do they cost? do they add up to the 30% of the price I would charge? :)
> They aren't mixing it. You can use the technology without the financial stuff. If that's your main point, then it's baseless.
Next time read the comment I am replying to and don't take my words out of context. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've really taken no time to look into this. Your comments are proof. This entire comment is wrong. > I don't want no payment standard for that Then don't use it. You don't have to. > heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service. Then don't use it. > I may find a service that charges me less than the standard service can offer. Then use it. Their are other options out there. > Take a l…
> You've really taken no time to look into this. I don't really think you know what I did and didn't do. > Your comments are proof. Really? > This entire comment is wrong. Baseless. > Then don't use it. You don't have to. I was pointing out the problems of the app store model. It has nothing to do with what I have and don't have to do. I was demonstrating something, so replying "Then don't use it" is superfluous. > C…
Actually, I do. Your original comment did a fair enough job declaring what you didn't know. Simple things that were mostly answered by doing a bit of reading. You also ignored people's responses as if somehow, despite your ignorance, you knew better.
> Really?
Yes, really.
> I was pointing out the problems of the app store model.
No, you didn't. Your original question was one of ignorance. You said:
"I don't really know...", "I don't really know...", and "What problems are these app stores supposed to fix?"
You weren't pointing out problems. You were declaring ignorance of the service. People provided answers, which you discarded without reason.
For example:
> I don't want no payment standard for that, heck I may not even want anyone to know how many users paid for my service.
That merely says you don't want it. It says nothing about the service or the validity. You weren't pointing out problems, or demonstrating anything. Just waving your arms around crying out.
> How much do they cost? do they add up to the 30% of the price I would charge? :)
That's the first reasonable question you've made. We'd of course want to look at similar services, so we'll look at Steam. I can't find exact numbers, but going by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29#Profitabil...) it suggests a 40% cut by Steam, and a much greater cut via normal retail. So a 30% cut is much more reasonable.
> Next time read the comment I am replying to and don't take my words out of context. Thank you.
I did. I also kept in mind what that comment was replying to, your original comment declaring your ignorance on the topic. Threads of conversation here are not just limited to immediate parents.
You're also ignoring the vast number of services that already do things akin to App stores and subscription services.
Essentially, you are challenging the need for these services and questioning their viability when these services have proven both successful and paramount in the success of many smaller developers.
You might not see the benefit for your own application. That's fine. You might try to explain that, rather than question the service as a whole. But then you can't discount the value it imparts upon others. Anyone can question. It's easy and safe, but provides no lasting value.