Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Jolla phone – first impressions

seravo.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#51

Post by camus2 »

veeti wrote: post #16

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps. What is the "long term"? Has somebody actually managed to build a native HTML5-based UI that isn't a laggy and clumsy piece of shit yet? For example, webOS looked great but even the simplest lists scrolled with less than 30 frames per second. The videos I've seen of FxOS don't show much promise eith…

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps.

People have been saying that for 5 years + , the "future" still has a long way to go. By the way , that's what the iphone was supposed to be, a phone where devs write browser apps... we all know what happened.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#52

Post by ye »

marquis wrote: post #38
veeti wrote: post #16

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps. What is the "long term"? Has somebody actually managed to build a native HTML5-based UI that isn't a laggy and clumsy piece of shit yet? For example, webOS looked great but even the simplest lists scrolled with less than 30 frames per second. The videos I've seen of FxOS don't show much promise eith…

Think long-term. What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser? Media recording and management? HTML5 is well on the way and someone compiled a functional version of FFMpeg in Javascript just recently. Storage? Security? Dropbox and more of the kind. We already have document management. The only thing I can think of right now is a render farm but we'll do that in the cloud anyway (even…

> What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser?

Off the top of my head,

1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance)

2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported by Javascript. Try creating an HTML5/JS scanner app.

3) Writing super-fast CPU-specific code, think Assembly language. That's the reason there are no HTML5 apps of the Photoshop caliber.

4) Disk access. Try creating a Javascript-based antivirus. Or an app that watches for changes in a certain directory.

5) Internal network access. Try writing a JS app interacting with your localhost or TCP/IP or UDP.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#53

Post by marquis »

ye wrote: post #52
marquis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think long-term. What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser? Media recording and management? HTML5 is well on the way and someone compiled a functional version of FFMpeg in Javascript just recently. Storage? Security? Dropbox and more of the kind. We already have document management. The only thing I can think of right now is a render farm but we'll do that in the cloud anyway (even…

> What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser? Off the top of my head, 1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance) 2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported by Javascript. Try creating an HTML5/JS scanner app. 3) Writing super-fast CPU-specific code, think Assembly language. That's the reason there are no HTML5…

All of your points are completely valid today. I would come back in 5 years and see that probably all of those are achievable by the browser and Javascript.

Eg: >1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance)

I would expect that a Nexus device can do Chromecast from browser screen, if not today then soon.

>2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported by Javascript. Try creating an HTML5/JS scanner app.

You mean like, taking a photo and processing it? You can do that right now.

>3) Writing super-fast CPU-specific code, think Assembly language. That's the reason there are no HTML5 apps of the Photoshop caliber

Yet, agreed. But soon - only CPU is slowing it down, not the technology.

>4) Disk access. Try creating a Javascript-based antivirus. Or an app that watches for changes in a certain directory.

There won't be a filesystem as we know it. The 'cloud' and browser-accessible storage will be all we need.

>5) Internal network access. Try writing a JS app interacting with your localhost or TCP/IP or UDP.

Sockets, it's possible now.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#54

Post by archagon »

marquis wrote: post #38
veeti wrote: post #16

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps. What is the "long term"? Has somebody actually managed to build a native HTML5-based UI that isn't a laggy and clumsy piece of shit yet? For example, webOS looked great but even the simplest lists scrolled with less than 30 frames per second. The videos I've seen of FxOS don't show much promise eith…

Think long-term. What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser? Media recording and management? HTML5 is well on the way and someone compiled a functional version of FFMpeg in Javascript just recently. Storage? Security? Dropbox and more of the kind. We already have document management. The only thing I can think of right now is a render farm but we'll do that in the cloud anyway (even…

It's impossible to predict things long-term. I mean, maybe we'll eventually get web applications that look and feel exactly like native apps. But maybe we'll still be stuck with kludgy, hacky, JS/HTML5-based apps that have rendering problems depending on your browser, that load in ugly chunks, that save your data to some proprietary cloud, that fail at concurrency, that don't integrate with your OS's multitasking workflow (Spaces, Mission Control), that take 5 times as long to run, and that stop working as soon as you go into a tunnel. And that's only from the user perspective; as a developer, I don't look forward to the nightmare of being stuck in a Javascript universe. I love being able to pick and choose from so many different frameworks, libraries, and languages when developing native apps; with Javascript, as soon as I try to do something simple, I inevitably end up with an SO answer that looks like this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/950087/how-to-include-a-j...

(And no, "use JQuery" is not an answer; it's a symptom.)

Plus, it just feels shitty to not be able to own any of your tools. I don't want to rent my applications from some multinational corporation. I bought them, so they should be mine. (Yeah, yeah, nobody really owns anything anymore, but at least the bloody bits are on my drive!)

In short, if web apps are the future, I hope that a) they're only one of several commonly used paradigms, and b) we have something better than a browser to run them in.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#55

Post by Mikeb85 »

nl wrote: post #39

This sounds like one of those "the sky is not falling" reviews of a Maemo phone in 2009, that ignores the (pretty huge) flaws of the platform because the author is a fan. You can see hints in this review: It should be is easy to search the web, enter URLs, open new tabs, save bookmarks etc. All of this can be done with the current browser in SailfishOS. The browser seems to work pretty fast and flawlessly. We heard a…

> So.. the whole point of this phone is HTML5 apps.

Don't know how on earth you came to this conclusion considering the phone is designed to run native QT5 apps.

The fact that it has good support for HTML5 doesn't mean it's the focus... Maybe you have it confused with Firefox OS?

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#56

Post by ye »

marquis wrote: post #53
ye wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What could you conceivably do on the desktop that you can't do on the browser? Off the top of my head, 1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance) 2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported by Javascript. Try creating an HTML5/JS scanner app. 3) Writing super-fast CPU-specific code, think Assembly language. That's the reason there are no HTML5…

All of your points are completely valid today. I would come back in 5 years and see that probably all of those are achievable by the browser and Javascript. Eg: >1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance) I would expect that a Nexus device can do Chromecast from browser screen, if not today then soon. >2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported…

> I would expect that a Nexus device can do Chromecast from browser screen, if not today then soon.

No, that's not what I meant. Pushing any data into HDMI, controlled by the app, not the screencasting.

> You mean like, taking a photo and processing it? You can do that right now.

No, I mean connecting to a scanner, scanning a document. You can't do it now. And don't tell me taking a snapshot with a built-in camera is the same thing

> There won't be a filesystem as we know it. The 'cloud' and browser-accessible storage will be all we need.

Sorry, I wasn't aware you could predict the future, and I thought we were talking about now.

> Sockets, it's possible now.

No, your JS app can't access the internal network, unless you expose it to the internet with TCP/IP. Sockets only let you connect to public servers. And no UDP (at least not explicitly).

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#57

Post by shmerl »

smcl wrote: post #3

Minor nitpick: I don't know how to say "Jolla". I mean I know that "Jolla" is pronounced "Hoya" in European Spanish ("Hosha" in Argentinian), but in most European languages it'd be "Yolla" with a soft "j" and the naive English pronunciation would be "Djolla". I don't know which was the intended one. Not that it really matters I suppose, but why go to all that trouble building an apparently lovely device and giving it…

The right way, according to the Jolla employees is "Dzholla", not "Yolla". But some of them say Yolla at times :)

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#58

Post by shmerl »

Geee wrote: post #9
smcl wrote: post #3

Minor nitpick: I don't know how to say "Jolla". I mean I know that "Jolla" is pronounced "Hoya" in European Spanish ("Hosha" in Argentinian), but in most European languages it'd be "Yolla" with a soft "j" and the naive English pronunciation would be "Djolla". I don't know which was the intended one. Not that it really matters I suppose, but why go to all that trouble building an apparently lovely device and giving it…

It's pronounced Yolla. Like they say it in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64ja7WBHU8

Which is not the right / official way really.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#59

Post by RussianCow »

camus2 wrote: post #51
veeti wrote: post #16

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps. What is the "long term"? Has somebody actually managed to build a native HTML5-based UI that isn't a laggy and clumsy piece of shit yet? For example, webOS looked great but even the simplest lists scrolled with less than 30 frames per second. The videos I've seen of FxOS don't show much promise eith…

> At Seravo we hold the belief that in the long term, browser based HTML5 apps will be more important than native apps. People have been saying that for 5 years + , the "future" still has a long way to go. By the way , that's what the iphone was supposed to be, a phone where devs write browser apps... we all know what happened.

Not really, though. That was clearly just a marketing gimmick by Apple. They really haven't pushed HTML5 as much as they made it seem.

Re: The Jolla phone – first impressions

#60

Post by marquis »

ye wrote: post #56
marquis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of your points are completely valid today. I would come back in 5 years and see that probably all of those are achievable by the browser and Javascript. Eg: >1) Anything low level hardware (reading data via USB, or pushing data into HDMI, for instance) I would expect that a Nexus device can do Chromecast from browser screen, if not today then soon. >2) Interacting with ANY hardware that's not explicitly supported…

> I would expect that a Nexus device can do Chromecast from browser screen, if not today then soon. No, that's not what I meant. Pushing any data into HDMI, controlled by the app, not the screencasting. > You mean like, taking a photo and processing it? You can do that right now. No, I mean connecting to a scanner, scanning a document. You can't do it now. And don't tell me taking a snapshot with a built-in camera is…

>I thought we were talking about now.

Ah well, I was talking about the future. You're correct about the above you mention, and regarding sockets I was of course referring to TCP/IP. I'm keeping an eye on the Jolla/ChromeOS/FireFox OS types, more than iOS as I think there will be significant changes to allow the above and more.

Post reply on HN