Mozilla Open Web App prototype
blog.mozilla.com
blog.mozilla.com
GMail, etc. has already proven that the browser provides a rich enough UI experience to replace desktop apps, but the general lack of integration with the services of an operating system still forces me to either (1) use desktop apps for some things or (2) go through convoluted processes.
An example: I used to work on a large photo sharing site, and making it easy for non-technical users to upload photos was important but difficult. A desktop app has the advantage of being able to recognize connected hardware, interrogate obscure file structures (DSIM blah, etc.), and show the user a pretty grid of photos from the camera -- all triggered on the hardware connection event. Recently, I told my dad to use Picasa as an uploading front-end. His eyes glaze over when I have to tell him how to navigate a directory structure, so a site which requires HTTP Upload is DOA for him. HTML5 will provide multi-file select, but the degree of available automation is terrible when compared to the desktop.
Here's what I'd like to see: A set of standard, OS-agnostic profiles for services provided by an operating system and common peripherals which would allow web-based apps to do things like slurp photos from a camera, print a pixel-perfect document, or capture a scanned image. Operating system vendors (or 3rd parties) could wrap OS-specific driver profiles with these Javascript/Browser-accessible APIs, and users could grant certain domains the rights to use them. Imagine a TWAIN driver wrapper for Windows which would allow a webapp to initiate a scanning request and capture the image without the user saving the file to disk and then uploading it.
The proposed notifications service is kind of like this except that it is designed to receive notifications from a bunch of sites even if no webapp is currently running.
I think the search service design should be inverted. There should be a standard search service interface which sites could implement, but the local operating system should implement this same interface and should be queried in parallel. A user could search for photos on his photo sharing site, a Dropbox-esque site, AND his local filesystem. But, the search service itself could be SaaS. Why make the desktop heavier?
What about a dialer/voice profile for mobile devices (and desktop as well)? What about a "screen management" profile which would allow a web-based Powerpoint competitor to automatically show the presentation on the projector but the slide notes on the laptop monitor? What other profiles would be interesting which could reduce the need for applications to target specific operating systems? What about a "headless" profile and a "system tray" profile so that Pandora could be implemented using a combination of HTML5 audio, an icon on the system tray, and the notification service for song titles?
What's different here? The entity you trust to provide you with a secure browser is the same entity providing a set of profiles, and you would opt into which sites could access these profiles. And, there's no "run arbitrary code" profile.
Do people know better these days? I'm not sure.
Is there a way to have one's cake and eat it too?
I can't help but dream about an alternate universe where browser vendors standardized on one common, open source rendering engine and one javascript engine.
- a cross domain JSON request function(they may have already implemented this)
- a way to limit the scope of a script tag, prevent a script from accessing the global object
and other security features that people really care about.
I don't really know how will this solve XSS and other security problems the web has.
What problems are these app stores supposed to fix?
You've completely missed the point. The feature isn't an app store. It's browser based applications you can download and install on your computer, and run locally. The browser is merely the engine the runs the application. They'll probably remove the chrome, and instead of acting like a browser and a web page, it will merely be the application.
We should be moving forward, rather than going backwards.
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 you aren't connected, or cannot connect remotely.
Also, you assert that we were moving away from desktop apps, when the opposite is true. Native apps are still insanely popular thanks to mobile devices. Even on an iOS device, you can run web apps as if they are local applications. It's incredibly useful here as well. Being able to install an application on your phone outside the App Store.
The crux of what they are proposing is a standard way to actually say "I want this web site to be considered an 'app' that can be installed using whatever your platform wants to consider installing". In other words, a slightly more enhanced, standard version of adding an app to your homescreen on the iPhone.
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 remotely.
...HTML5 or Google Gears maybe.
> Also, you assert that we were moving away from desktop apps, when the opposite is true.
Show me a recent native app that has the success rate of Facebook or Twitter. A lot of native apps are just interfaces to web apps.
> Even on an iOS device, you can run web apps as if they are local applications.
With bookmarking them and making the app use HTML5 app cache.
> Being able to install an application on your phone outside the App Store.
install = bookmark
Ohhh and let's not forget the "native" applications that in reality wrapped web apps.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think perhaps it would be better Google Chrome and Mozilla had a compatible app dashboard for the browser, a standard interface to add applications to these browser dashboards, and competing, but compatible, web stores for web applications.
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.
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.
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.