> The problem is HTML5 is not scheduled for official approval by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) until 2014.
Does anybody care about this, anywhere? It's relevant inasmuch as not all features of the spec(s) have been implemented, but it's been well established that XHTML2 killed the waterfall model for web-dev. The whole reason HTML5 is thriving is due to ongoing incremental improvements, not a hardcoded release date.
> If you’re not looking to monetize your app then, absolutely, you should go for HTML5. If you’re looking to monetize it. then native coding for the App Store is still the way to go.
This completely ignores the fact that you can build native apps using HTML5, not to mention all the successful freemium/subscription based web apps (the model works far better for Basecamp than Angry Birds, but it's still working well for many).
> This completely ignores the fact that you can build native apps using HTML5
You can and you can't. You can wrap a web view inside an app, sure, but HTML5 apps never look as good or work as well as native solutions- the UI doesn't match, any attempt at using a map view is a mess... the web browsers haven't received enough attention to make them look as good.
About the only OS in which this works well is WebOS, where, IIRC, you can write a native app using JS and HTML.
I think it depends heavily on the app type and the feature-set required. Certain apps can never be duplicated well or even at all; others (such as apps that wrap web content already, or form-centric business tools) would be near-indistinguishable to the casual users who are the target market for most apps. (Also keep in mind, the article was referring not to the quality of products, but of potential business models).
Moreover, cross-platform distribution is nothing to sneeze at. I'm reminded a little of Java programs back when Macs had under 5% market share, and far less native software. I might have been annoyed that these programs were slow and didn't honor Mac conventions, but when there weren't good alternatives, it still beat having nothing at all.
Comments
Typical tech "journalism":
> The problem is HTML5 is not scheduled for official approval by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) until 2014.
Does anybody care about this, anywhere? It's relevant inasmuch as not all features of the spec(s) have been implemented, but it's been well established that XHTML2 killed the waterfall model for web-dev. The whole reason HTML5 is thriving is due to ongoing incremental improvements, not a hardcoded release date.
> If you’re not looking to monetize your app then, absolutely, you should go for HTML5. If you’re looking to monetize it. then native coding for the App Store is still the way to go.
This completely ignores the fact that you can build native apps using HTML5, not to mention all the successful freemium/subscription based web apps (the model works far better for Basecamp than Angry Birds, but it's still working well for many).
> This completely ignores the fact that you can build native apps using HTML5
You can and you can't. You can wrap a web view inside an app, sure, but HTML5 apps never look as good or work as well as native solutions- the UI doesn't match, any attempt at using a map view is a mess... the web browsers haven't received enough attention to make them look as good.
About the only OS in which this works well is WebOS, where, IIRC, you can write a native app using JS and HTML.
I think it depends heavily on the app type and the feature-set required. Certain apps can never be duplicated well or even at all; others (such as apps that wrap web content already, or form-centric business tools) would be near-indistinguishable to the casual users who are the target market for most apps. (Also keep in mind, the article was referring not to the quality of products, but of potential business models).
Moreover, cross-platform distribution is nothing to sneeze at. I'm reminded a little of Java programs back when Macs had under 5% market share, and far less native software. I might have been annoyed that these programs were slow and didn't honor Mac conventions, but when there weren't good alternatives, it still beat having nothing at all.