Live data from Hacker News

Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

macrumors.com

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#51
post #17
post #5

I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps. I've seen this coming a mile away. Apple almost lost a big portion of its development community 2 years ago with that whole 3rd party development platform issue. Apple relented, and they are now turning a different crank with the big subscription tax. They are playing a game of monopoly here. It's the s…

This is the reason why there will be major difficulty in iOS in medical. Apple has its hands around the neck of the platform too firmly to make it feasible for serious medical enterprise apps. There are lots of people who dont believe this, but as a healthcare designer i really think that apples model is way too greedy and crippling.

Meanwhile iOS is ... (wait for it) ... killing in medical:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/75-Percent-of-Physic...

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#52
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their platform is superior to everything else out there. This seems like opinion presented as fact. I've used iOS and currently own an Android phone, and there's no doubt in my mind that the Android UX is miles ahead of the iOS UX. Of course, I include things like a browser with sync to desktop (Firefox) in my definition of UX, since things like that affect the experience I have while using the product quite…

Sadly, you will find that HN tends to be very anti-Android from a UI perspective. Haven't you noticed the praise of the notification system and other changes to iOS that have existed in Android for ages. Or the obsession with iMessage despite the existence of Google Voice. At one point in time, iOS was prettier than Android. Too few HNers have actually used Froyo or Gingerbread to understand the UI improvements that…

Contrary to what you think I'd guess most HNers have some experience with 'actual multitasking' on real computers. Most of them understand that it's easier to enable it fully then to enable it in a highly limited fashion. Most of them understand that "actual multitasking" is not the holy grail of computing. Most of them realize that Apple has disabled "actual multitasking" in favor of superior battery life. And most of them do have experience with Froyo or Gingerbread phones since ~75% of android phones are running Froyo plus.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#53
If you are't into first class economic writing, and I'm talking so good it almost explains the euro, pick up the FT Saturday edition. Tremendous coverage of books, arts, personalities, and occasionally some truly quirky stories. Also: A "How To Spend It" magazine that takes appalling up to the point of irony.

I know, the HN audience doesn't care. But amid all the discussion of platform strategy, the FT staff deserve a salute. There is a reason this paper doesn't need Apple.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#54
post #5

I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps. I've seen this coming a mile away. Apple almost lost a big portion of its development community 2 years ago with that whole 3rd party development platform issue. Apple relented, and they are now turning a different crank with the big subscription tax. They are playing a game of monopoly here. It's the s…

We're really nowhere near it at all. The basic economics is that the app market and the exposure from actually being in the app market is just far too massive for that to happen. I'm also amazed at how often the myth that one day we'll all be using really crappy Html5 apps continues. Html5 compared to native apps done by an average developer just plain sucks, no amount of 'HTML5 web apps == AWESOME!' pretending and w…

Exposure in the app market only matters if you happen to crack into the top 25.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#55
For straight content delivery companies, making a web app should be the first priority. A native app isn't going to offer much in the way of enhanced functionality, and your effort will likely be diluted while you chase multiple platforms.

It makes even more sense to focus on a web app when your company already has a web site. You likely already have the expertise on staff to create a good web app, and any new features or techniques you develop can be easily used in both places.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#56
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, you will find that HN tends to be very anti-Android from a UI perspective. Haven't you noticed the praise of the notification system and other changes to iOS that have existed in Android for ages. Or the obsession with iMessage despite the existence of Google Voice. At one point in time, iOS was prettier than Android. Too few HNers have actually used Froyo or Gingerbread to understand the UI improvements that…

Contrary to what you think I'd guess most HNers have some experience with 'actual multitasking' on real computers. Most of them understand that it's easier to enable it fully then to enable it in a highly limited fashion. Most of them understand that "actual multitasking" is not the holy grail of computing. Most of them realize that Apple has disabled "actual multitasking" in favor of superior battery life. And most…

My comment wasn't about multitasking, but it was nice of you to focus on it. As for the apologizing for Apple's half-baked multitasking is fine, I'm very glad you're happy with what you're allowed to do on your phone. My battery life is quite fine, thank you, I frankly had thought we were past that excuse.

The bit about multitasking was merely a remark that everything Apple does is magic, even here on HN where I usually expect better. iMessage is magic (despite doing what Google Voice does with less features). iOS multitasking is magic (and a clone of Android's minus some features). Notifications are obvious in iOS 5. They even have the gall to intro notifications, a near exact clone of them in Android and then less than five minutes later, jeer that their competitors will steal from them. iCloud API? Oh cool, almost like the cloud backup feature offered in Froyo. Apple has great stuff, I'm just tired of everyone acting like Steve himself invented all of it. And I'm tired of the default assumption that iOS is easier to use than Android. (It's just like Windows/Mac. I took my mom to KC and to the Apple store and had her play with an iPhone. She had a very hard time using it, she was used to the Android way. Just like iOS users are confused by my phone.)

Truth be told, I don't have a problem with Apple's multitasking implementation. I think it's limited, some apps that I use daily don't and never will exist in iOS because APIs simply don't exist that would allow them to be functional. That's fine. I was talking from a UI/UX standpoint. I can switch between apps, or have an application launch another via Intent, and they work as a user would expect. And the back button and long-press-home work as users would expect them to. This is not the case with iOS, there is no parallel to Intents and going between applications to share data for any sort of "process" that a developer might want. That was more my indictment. I wasn't looking for the generic age-old Apple v Google v "stealing" debate. I can go have that anywhere with anyone.

And I'm sure that "most" of HN has experience with Froyo+, but my doubts come in about those that downvote those that like the Android UI or the ones that imply that Android looks bad or is unsuable. It's these people that either haven't actually used an Android device in the last year or longer, or didn't bother trying to use it for more than a minute. I've still yet to hear an actual indictment of the current Android UI/X or why iOS's is so vastly superior. (which is what we were actually talking about)

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But here is the question. Do people buy the iPad because of the magazines or the magazines because of the iPad? In other words. Does it really make a difference if they leave? Is that really anything to worry about? Will that really mean the end of native apps? Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around.

>Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around. Won't their value diminish if there no apps and no content to subscribe to, except through Safari? Why do you think Jobs advertizes 400K apps with a tile of icons on screen? What if Netflix and Kindle were yanked on June 30? Many people buy iDevices just to access those. Will be interesting June 30th

"If there was no apps and no content"

"if there no apps and no content to subscribe to"

What world do you live in where this is even remotely possible? By all means Go Galt, there are plenty of others willing to step in and make millions off iphone owners.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're really nowhere near it at all. The basic economics is that the app market and the exposure from actually being in the app market is just far too massive for that to happen. I'm also amazed at how often the myth that one day we'll all be using really crappy Html5 apps continues. Html5 compared to native apps done by an average developer just plain sucks, no amount of 'HTML5 web apps == AWESOME!' pretending and w…

Exposure in the app market only matters if you happen to crack into the top 25.

Or if someone ever searches for something like your app which happens sometimes:

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=iphone%20business%2...

Those are google searches but the same thing is undoutedly happening thousands of times a day in iTunes/App Store.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#59
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around. Won't their value diminish if there no apps and no content to subscribe to, except through Safari? Why do you think Jobs advertizes 400K apps with a tile of icons on screen? What if Netflix and Kindle were yanked on June 30? Many people buy iDevices just to access those. Will be interesting June 30th

"If there was no apps and no content" "if there no apps and no content to subscribe to" What world do you live in where this is even remotely possible? By all means Go Galt, there are plenty of others willing to step in and make millions off iphone owners.

You're missing the point. The point is, Apple's walled garden is profitable now, in part, due to the forced use of their APIs. If developers continue to be forced to use Apple's APIs or nothing... well... as we're seeing here in this case, they begin to choose nothing.

It's like the mafia expecting payments. The protection they offer is great if you're willing to pay the price. If you're not, you have to move out of town and offer your services remotely (or at least via a webapp instead).

And the notion that any old body is going to step in and "make millions off iphone owners" is really cute. I'm curious who produces the content like Financial Times that can just come in and supply a new native app for iOS...

That's precisely the point being discussed here. Apple is successful as long as people can access the apps and content they're looking for. Hell, Apple will still be successful even if Kindle and Netflix walk... but they won't be as successful as their competitors. There really is no doubt that Apple relies on media (itunes-music, movies, ebooks, etc) to sell the value of their platform. Will their greed hurt their access to that media? I think that's a big part of a big question.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#60
post #51
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reason why there will be major difficulty in iOS in medical. Apple has its hands around the neck of the platform too firmly to make it feasible for serious medical enterprise apps. There are lots of people who dont believe this, but as a healthcare designer i really think that apples model is way too greedy and crippling.

Meanwhile iOS is ... (wait for it) ... killing in medical: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/75-Percent-of-Physic...

Thats not the same thing.

There is a difference between physicians loving the DEVICE and it being the right platform for a hospital.

Trust me I know. I design hospitals and health systems.

I love the iPad - but if you think that giving 30% of your margin and 100% of control to apple is the right idea - then you're wrong.

Sure, there are a ton of one-off single use apps for iOS and most of them are fantastic - but there are inhernet flaws with the use of iOS as a platform in a facility.

For small practice, it totally makes sense - but not yet completely in a hospital.

Except, physicians dont care about where the money goes - thus, we will see a shift to apple - but I still maintain that it is wrong.

iOS will NOT lower costs in the broken US health system -- it will continue the greed and health costs will not come down.

It is a far more complex issue than measuring your fucking blood pressure or tracking how many times you worked out on your little iphone.

Post reply on HN