6 ms·

Joe Hewitt: On Middle Men

101 points by mqt 17y ago

mrshoe 17y ago
I recently attended a talk by a WebKit developer employed by Apple. The topic of the talk was advanced CSS techniques. The speaker demonstrated some incredible capabilities that WebKit has added to CSS, including transition animations, 2D and 3D positioning and transformation, and gradient generation (to name a few). When he combined these techniques into a demo web site along with the HTML5 video element, I was blown away. Unfortunately, Joe is correct that "Web technology is still relatively weak, and improving slowly." On the iPhone (and, to a lesser extent, on the desktop) there is no comparison between the quality of native apps and the quality of web apps. Native apps still afford much more to the developer. Yet the web stack has proven to be very developer and user friendly. Unfortunately, it is crippled by the browsers (especially one browser in particular...). Somehow we need to accelerate the empowerment of the web stack. One way to do this is to diminish the power of various "native" stacks. Ironically, Apple is one of the companies leading the way in this regard. The latest version of iTunes is almost entirely WebKit based. Mobile Safari on the iPhone can use all those amazing CSS capabilities that other browsers can't yet, even on the desktop. In the end, I have to agree with Google's strategy: bet big on HTML5. Eventually, all apps will be web apps (though hopefully they won't require a native app -- the browser -- to run). I just don't know what to do in the interim while the web stack is still crippled by the browsers.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - mrshoe 17y ago
    Sorry, the definition of "web app" that I intended here is a UI written in HTML/CSS and scripted with JavaScript. Also, it's distributed over HTTP, and usually it relies on data and application logic that lives on a remote server. Currently, this basically means it runs in a web browser. I agree with you that the distinction is blurring and that we should attempt to blur it even more.
- bonaldi 17y ago
  "Eventually, all apps will be web apps" I keep hearing this, especially from the Cappuccino guys, and it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For it to be true, HTML/JS/CSS would have to stretch dramatically to accommodate all the functionality of existing OS frameworks, except they'll also have to be platform independent. Even if this happens, it'll be yet another layer on top of the current stacks, but will have to perform as well as software written for the layer below. It might be plausible, but I don't think it's a given. "The web" has barely gotten around to doing roundrects easily, let alone have the abilities to allow you to implement something like InDesign, Maya or Cubase using its technologies. "Some apps"? Sure. "Most apps"? I can even see that -- consumer apps and basic business apps the web can do really well. But "all apps"? [citation required].
  - mrshoe 17y ago
    > HTML/JS/CSS would have to stretch dramatically to accommodate all the functionality of existing OS frameworks Yes, that's my point, and I think a major point of the article. It's getting there, but very very slowly. The main reason for that is the required consensus of the various browser vendors. There is nothing inherent to the web model (apps built with HTML/CSS/js and distributed by visiting web URLs) that makes it impossible to do everything you can do with "native" UI framework X. > let alone have the abilities to allow you to implement something like InDesign, Maya or Cubase using its technologies. The UIs for those apps could easily be implemented using web technologies. The number crunching would require an extension to our current set of web technologies, like Google's native client. JavaScript implementations have come a long way in recent years, but not that long. ;-) Still, the point is not that all apps can currently be written using web technologies. The point is that it's theoretically possible and that the world is moving in that direction. Sure, there are barriers to overcome. So, let's overcome those. It's not impossible. It's not even that difficult.
    - bonaldi 17y ago
      I'm not sure that InDesign's UI could be done with current tools -- there's a lot of hardcore typography and image manipulation going on there at levels of precision that make pixel-perfect look slapdash. Still, I take the point, but it still seems to me much more like something that would be theoretically possible than anything that will actually come to pass. As you say, to really make this happen, you have to stop limiting the progress of HTML, and that means breaking out of the browsers. But ... if you break out of the browsers, you fracture the platform, and that means you lose the incentive to make these apps web apps in the first place. If your HTML/JS/CSS stack isn't as platform and browser-agnostic as it can be, ultimately you end up with a platform-specific way of writing apps that competes with native apps, and that's a losing battle. Putting that aside, I'm not sure there's case that all apps should be HTML/JS, either. We can do cool things with the web stack, but ultimately it's designed and optimised for sending pages and forms back and forth. We put up with that because there are a great many benefits in doing so, but there has to be a reason to write our apps that way -- reasons that things like iTunes and the Safari Web Inspector have, but lots of other desktop apps don't and won't.
- idoh 17y ago
  How would one go about using a webapp without a browser?
  - mrshoe 17y ago
    If all apps are written in HTML/CSS/js, why would your OS have 1 "native" app that runs all other apps? The OS would just run web apps directly. The OS's UI itself would be written in web technologies. Maybe Chrome OS will do this. Given the short period of time they've been working on it, I doubt it, but I can hope. See http://shoptalkapp.com/blog/2009/10/15/the-real-web-os http://shoptalkapp.com/blog/2009/10/15/the-real-web-os
    - duh 17y ago
      > The OS would just run web apps directly You know, that's basically what Microsoft tried to do with internet explorer, but they ran up against such vehement opposition I'm pretty convinced that's why the concept hasn't progressed. Next up is Google with Chrome/OS/Android, will they be perceived as Evil also? Only time will tell.
    - idoh 17y ago
      Having browsers mean X apps that run other apps, not 1. I think it is sort of a dystopian vision to have the OS be the only party responsible for rendering apps. Having IE, Safari, Firefox & Chrome (and Flock, MobileSafari, Opera, ...) in the mix has really spurred a lot of innovation and there's no reason why the innovation will slow down.
- wooster 17y ago
  "The latest version of iTunes is almost entirely WebKit based." Much of the store frontend is, but I think you underestimate the staggering amount of code that goes into a desktop app like iTunes.
arihelgason 17y ago
"Middle men exist to reduce the cost of getting a product from A to B" This isn't the whole story. Good middle men also add value in any number of ways (editorialising, structuring relationships, adding trust). Disintermediation isn't always the answer. Becoming a better middle man sometimes is.
- psranga 17y ago
  IMHO, all of the supposed advantages of a middleman can be provided by an optional (important word) neutral third party (cnet downloads.com virus free downloads for example). I agree with the article, I see very little value in middlemen.
- Wump 17y ago
  Agree. Advertising networks are middle men. So, Google is one of the biggest, most successful, and most useful middle men in history.
minalecs 17y ago
unfortunately i think joe is underestimating the power of the carriers in this one. Look at how Verizon cripples devices, and how expensive unlimited data plans are. Native app that can work without connectivity are still a huge advantage. If you look at the top selling apps, most can work without data.
SwellJoe 17y ago
I'm pleased to note that a lot of people have realized that taking part in the iPhone (and other locked down mobile devices) ecosystem is sharecropping. Obviously, the landowners have a strong desire to stick with the sharecropper model...I've just never understood why developers are voluntarily going there, when there are so many other ways to spend ones time and effort that don't involve begging Apple for scraps.
- trixjo 17y ago
  please do tell. what are the "other ways"? no other app market has the audience that Apple has let's not even mention the Android marketplace -- it is still to nascent. so what are the "other ways" please? do tell
  - SwellJoe 17y ago
    what are the "other ways"? no other app market has the audience that Apple has So, I say, "I don't want to be a sharecropper", and you ask me where else you can be a sharecropper that treats you better. I'm not talking about app markets, at all. I'm talking about being a software developer. As a software developer, you have damned near infinite options for making a living. And a lot of those options provide more dignity, and more money, than being Apple's bitch. The notion that selling iPhone apps is a "gold mine" for developers is a bit like saying the lottery is a good investment strategy. Yes, some developers make a lot of money from iPhone applications. Most do not. I suspect that building products for the much wider general software market or the web market would be a much more profitable path for your efforts (at least, that's been where I've placed my bets, and where I plan to continue placing my bets in the future).
    - ntoshev 17y ago
      The web market works, of course; the app store is just a specific distribution channel that has its advantages over the web: * everyone who needs to do something on their iPhone goes to search the app store even though a web app could serve their needs better * users like the reviews and trust apple not to allow harmful apps in the store * the app store provides an easy way to charge your users
seregine 17y ago
This criticism applies to Facebook as much as it does to Apple. Facebook apps, though usually built with more web technologies, still live in a walled garden and require permission to operate. "We're at a critical juncture in the evolution of software." That's been true for the last 20 years. The software ecosystem evolves to meet users' needs; the walled gardens have their place and the free-for-all areas have theirs.
- mikebo 17y ago
  It does. Replace "mobile device" with "social network", and any other occurrence of"mobile" with "social" and give it a read. Glass houses and all that.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- frognibble 17y ago
  Hewitt's criticism does not apply directly to Facebook. Facebook does not act as a gatekeeper. Facebook does not require approval or review before launch and operation of an application.
  - mikebo 17y ago
    But it does rule the platform with an iron fist, and the rules and APIs drastically change every 4-6 months. Ask Zynga, Slide or RockYou.
  - aside 17y ago
    Facebook does require approval prior to launch in the App Gallery. Given all the recent scams within Games I am fairly certain that Facebook is getting far more aggressive about what gets into the Gallery. Apple is not perfect but beyond the App Store one can deploy an iPhone App within a company via the enterprise deployment.
lowdown 17y ago
Hewitt is dead wrong on his definition of middle men. They are there to facilitate and earn a profit. Nothing to do with lowering cost. They increase cost. Period. Frankly, I think he's being a bit of a whiner about the whole thing. There are what, 100k apps in the store? If they weren't QCing it would be 1,000,000 and the percentage of shit apps would be MUCH higher than it is now (and it is through the roof right now).
- jerf 17y ago
  If the middleman brings more value to the end-customer than he increases the cost, then (s)he is a net win, and cutting the middleman out reduces the value to the end customer. Note how that doesn't contradict what you say, which is still literally true; the question is whether your literal truth actually matters. The Internet makes some of the old "easy" ways of being a middleman irrelevant and open the field wide open in a lot of ways, but it will never make it impossible for a middleman to bring more value to the customer than they cost. It's just that competing with "customer goes direct to the source" just got a lot harder.
known 17y ago
Govt is the biggest Middle Men between Tax Payers & Consumers.
gabrielroth 17y ago
In short, the mobile web needs better tools, better standards, and better browsers Agreed. and it needs them fast, before the only technologies that matter are the ones controlled by the gatekeepers. This is what I don't understand. Why is there a time limit? Why wouldn't we expect things to play out in mobile just as they did on the desktop, with web apps moving from nonexistent to peripheral to ubiquitous over many years? Web developers were able to work around the limitations of Internet Explorer -- not without pain and suffering, but well enough. So why wouldn't we expect them to work around the limitations of mobile browsers?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

101 points by mqt 17y ago

I recently attended a talk by a WebKit developer employed by Apple. The topic of the talk was advanced CSS techniques. The speaker demonstrated some incredible capabilities that WebKit has added to CSS, including transition animations, 2D and 3D positioning and transformation, and gradient generation (to name a few). When he combined these techniques into a demo web site along with the HTML5 video element, I was blown away. Unfortunately, Joe is correct that "Web technology is still relatively weak, and improving slowly." On the iPhone (and, to a lesser extent, on the desktop) there is no comparison between the quality of native apps and the quality of web apps. Native apps still afford much more to the developer. Yet the web stack has proven to be very developer and user friendly. Unfortunately, it is crippled by the browsers (especially one browser in particular...). Somehow we need to accelerate the empowerment of the web stack. One way to do this is to diminish the power of various "native" stacks. Ironically, Apple is one of the companies leading the way in this regard. The latest version of iTunes is almost entirely WebKit based. Mobile Safari on the iPhone can use all those amazing CSS capabilities that other browsers can't yet, even on the desktop. In the end, I have to agree with Google's strategy: bet big on HTML5. Eventually, all apps will be web apps (though hopefully they won't require a native app -- the browser -- to run). I just don't know what to do in the interim while the web stack is still crippled by the browsers.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- mrshoe 17y ago
  Sorry, the definition of "web app" that I intended here is a UI written in HTML/CSS and scripted with JavaScript. Also, it's distributed over HTTP, and usually it relies on data and application logic that lives on a remote server. Currently, this basically means it runs in a web browser. I agree with you that the distinction is blurring and that we should attempt to blur it even more.
bonaldi 17y ago
"Eventually, all apps will be web apps" I keep hearing this, especially from the Cappuccino guys, and it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For it to be true, HTML/JS/CSS would have to stretch dramatically to accommodate all the functionality of existing OS frameworks, except they'll also have to be platform independent. Even if this happens, it'll be yet another layer on top of the current stacks, but will have to perform as well as software written for the layer below. It might be plausible, but I don't think it's a given. "The web" has barely gotten around to doing roundrects easily, let alone have the abilities to allow you to implement something like InDesign, Maya or Cubase using its technologies. "Some apps"? Sure. "Most apps"? I can even see that -- consumer apps and basic business apps the web can do really well. But "all apps"? [citation required].
- mrshoe 17y ago
  > HTML/JS/CSS would have to stretch dramatically to accommodate all the functionality of existing OS frameworks Yes, that's my point, and I think a major point of the article. It's getting there, but very very slowly. The main reason for that is the required consensus of the various browser vendors. There is nothing inherent to the web model (apps built with HTML/CSS/js and distributed by visiting web URLs) that makes it impossible to do everything you can do with "native" UI framework X. > let alone have the abilities to allow you to implement something like InDesign, Maya or Cubase using its technologies. The UIs for those apps could easily be implemented using web technologies. The number crunching would require an extension to our current set of web technologies, like Google's native client. JavaScript implementations have come a long way in recent years, but not that long. ;-) Still, the point is not that all apps can currently be written using web technologies. The point is that it's theoretically possible and that the world is moving in that direction. Sure, there are barriers to overcome. So, let's overcome those. It's not impossible. It's not even that difficult.
  - bonaldi 17y ago
    I'm not sure that InDesign's UI could be done with current tools -- there's a lot of hardcore typography and image manipulation going on there at levels of precision that make pixel-perfect look slapdash. Still, I take the point, but it still seems to me much more like something that would be theoretically possible than anything that will actually come to pass. As you say, to really make this happen, you have to stop limiting the progress of HTML, and that means breaking out of the browsers. But ... if you break out of the browsers, you fracture the platform, and that means you lose the incentive to make these apps web apps in the first place. If your HTML/JS/CSS stack isn't as platform and browser-agnostic as it can be, ultimately you end up with a platform-specific way of writing apps that competes with native apps, and that's a losing battle. Putting that aside, I'm not sure there's case that all apps should be HTML/JS, either. We can do cool things with the web stack, but ultimately it's designed and optimised for sending pages and forms back and forth. We put up with that because there are a great many benefits in doing so, but there has to be a reason to write our apps that way -- reasons that things like iTunes and the Safari Web Inspector have, but lots of other desktop apps don't and won't.
idoh 17y ago
How would one go about using a webapp without a browser?
- mrshoe 17y ago
  If all apps are written in HTML/CSS/js, why would your OS have 1 "native" app that runs all other apps? The OS would just run web apps directly. The OS's UI itself would be written in web technologies. Maybe Chrome OS will do this. Given the short period of time they've been working on it, I doubt it, but I can hope. See http://shoptalkapp.com/blog/2009/10/15/the-real-web-os http://shoptalkapp.com/blog/2009/10/15/the-real-web-os
  - duh 17y ago
    > The OS would just run web apps directly You know, that's basically what Microsoft tried to do with internet explorer, but they ran up against such vehement opposition I'm pretty convinced that's why the concept hasn't progressed. Next up is Google with Chrome/OS/Android, will they be perceived as Evil also? Only time will tell.
  - idoh 17y ago
    Having browsers mean X apps that run other apps, not 1. I think it is sort of a dystopian vision to have the OS be the only party responsible for rendering apps. Having IE, Safari, Firefox & Chrome (and Flock, MobileSafari, Opera, ...) in the mix has really spurred a lot of innovation and there's no reason why the innovation will slow down.
wooster 17y ago
"The latest version of iTunes is almost entirely WebKit based." Much of the store frontend is, but I think you underestimate the staggering amount of code that goes into a desktop app like iTunes.

arihelgason 17y ago

"Middle men exist to reduce the cost of getting a product from A to B" This isn't the whole story. Good middle men also add value in any number of ways (editorialising, structuring relationships, adding trust). Disintermediation isn't always the answer. Becoming a better middle man sometimes is.

psranga 17y ago
IMHO, all of the supposed advantages of a middleman can be provided by an optional (important word) neutral third party (cnet downloads.com virus free downloads for example). I agree with the article, I see very little value in middlemen.
Wump 17y ago
Agree. Advertising networks are middle men. So, Google is one of the biggest, most successful, and most useful middle men in history.

minalecs 17y ago

unfortunately i think joe is underestimating the power of the carriers in this one. Look at how Verizon cripples devices, and how expensive unlimited data plans are. Native app that can work without connectivity are still a huge advantage. If you look at the top selling apps, most can work without data.

SwellJoe 17y ago

I'm pleased to note that a lot of people have realized that taking part in the iPhone (and other locked down mobile devices) ecosystem is sharecropping. Obviously, the landowners have a strong desire to stick with the sharecropper model...I've just never understood why developers are voluntarily going there, when there are so many other ways to spend ones time and effort that don't involve begging Apple for scraps.

trixjo 17y ago
please do tell. what are the "other ways"? no other app market has the audience that Apple has let's not even mention the Android marketplace -- it is still to nascent. so what are the "other ways" please? do tell
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  what are the "other ways"? no other app market has the audience that Apple has So, I say, "I don't want to be a sharecropper", and you ask me where else you can be a sharecropper that treats you better. I'm not talking about app markets, at all. I'm talking about being a software developer. As a software developer, you have damned near infinite options for making a living. And a lot of those options provide more dignity, and more money, than being Apple's bitch. The notion that selling iPhone apps is a "gold mine" for developers is a bit like saying the lottery is a good investment strategy. Yes, some developers make a lot of money from iPhone applications. Most do not. I suspect that building products for the much wider general software market or the web market would be a much more profitable path for your efforts (at least, that's been where I've placed my bets, and where I plan to continue placing my bets in the future).
  - ntoshev 17y ago
    The web market works, of course; the app store is just a specific distribution channel that has its advantages over the web: * everyone who needs to do something on their iPhone goes to search the app store even though a web app could serve their needs better * users like the reviews and trust apple not to allow harmful apps in the store * the app store provides an easy way to charge your users

seregine 17y ago

This criticism applies to Facebook as much as it does to Apple. Facebook apps, though usually built with more web technologies, still live in a walled garden and require permission to operate. "We're at a critical juncture in the evolution of software." That's been true for the last 20 years. The software ecosystem evolves to meet users' needs; the walled gardens have their place and the free-for-all areas have theirs.

mikebo 17y ago
It does. Replace "mobile device" with "social network", and any other occurrence of"mobile" with "social" and give it a read. Glass houses and all that.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
frognibble 17y ago
Hewitt's criticism does not apply directly to Facebook. Facebook does not act as a gatekeeper. Facebook does not require approval or review before launch and operation of an application.
- mikebo 17y ago
  But it does rule the platform with an iron fist, and the rules and APIs drastically change every 4-6 months. Ask Zynga, Slide or RockYou.
- aside 17y ago
  Facebook does require approval prior to launch in the App Gallery. Given all the recent scams within Games I am fairly certain that Facebook is getting far more aggressive about what gets into the Gallery. Apple is not perfect but beyond the App Store one can deploy an iPhone App within a company via the enterprise deployment.

lowdown 17y ago

Hewitt is dead wrong on his definition of middle men. They are there to facilitate and earn a profit. Nothing to do with lowering cost. They increase cost. Period. Frankly, I think he's being a bit of a whiner about the whole thing. There are what, 100k apps in the store? If they weren't QCing it would be 1,000,000 and the percentage of shit apps would be MUCH higher than it is now (and it is through the roof right now).

jerf 17y ago
If the middleman brings more value to the end-customer than he increases the cost, then (s)he is a net win, and cutting the middleman out reduces the value to the end customer. Note how that doesn't contradict what you say, which is still literally true; the question is whether your literal truth actually matters. The Internet makes some of the old "easy" ways of being a middleman irrelevant and open the field wide open in a lot of ways, but it will never make it impossible for a middleman to bring more value to the customer than they cost. It's just that competing with "customer goes direct to the source" just got a lot harder.

known 17y ago

Govt is the biggest Middle Men between Tax Payers & Consumers.

gabrielroth 17y ago

In short, the mobile web needs better tools, better standards, and better browsers Agreed. and it needs them fast, before the only technologies that matter are the ones controlled by the gatekeepers. This is what I don't understand. Why is there a time limit? Why wouldn't we expect things to play out in mobile just as they did on the desktop, with web apps moving from nonexistent to peripheral to ubiquitous over many years? Web developers were able to work around the limitations of Internet Explorer -- not without pain and suffering, but well enough. So why wouldn't we expect them to work around the limitations of mobile browsers?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]