We are in the final years of our internet
stupidiswinning.tumblr.com
stupidiswinning.tumblr.com
Look, consumer technology is always a mess - apps vs web vs native vs desktop vs mobile vs ... etc etc. The truth of it is that we have so many choices because technology is meant to solve individual problems as best as possible.
There will never be one winner.
I think the author assumes just because tablets and apps are growing (I assume this is still happening) that this is the end game. Its not - tablets and apps certainly will be prominent for what they are good at. The app environment sucks for some things. Free flow of information and low friction information searching certainly is one use case where the web is so so much better than apps can ever be in their current form.
Lastly "apps" have always existed. Nintendo games were for all intensive purposes apps in that they were self confined experiences you played on what essentially was a technological black box. In truth if you look historically at how we have been using computing - things are more the same than different - you just have to remove the silly titles we give everything.
There will, however, be many losers, and PCs are going to be one of those losers. The form factor won't die, but the philosophy and freedom will die. It is inevitable, given the priorities people have and the money to be made.
If things continue going the way they are going, the only computers that will give users the freedom to do what we can do now will be locked away in research labs, available only to the lucky few who can land jobs in such places. These computers will be so expensive that only people who are doing funded research will be able to afford them. The next best thing will be computers targeted at developers (perhaps "debug" computers), which will be too expensive for most people to consider buying them but (hopefully) inexpensive enough for hackers to get their hands on them; these will still be loaded with restrictions, but at least the user will be able to write and run code and use a debugger. The only computers that will be anywhere near the price point that most people will consider paying will be those that are restricted to running software that was signed by some large corporation (i.e. only approved programs), with only the macro systems for a few "professional" programs (priced beyond what most people can afford) being available for user programming.
Why would software or hardware companies want it any other way? The next "big thing" will have to be filtered through the app store system, and the little startup that makes that software will be bought out before they can overtake the established players. The big media companies will form partnerships with the companies that control app stores (or just mergers, so that the whole stack is controlled by the same entity) that will be immensely profitable. ESPN will require all of Dell's customers to buy the ESPN app, without the option to get a refund or to remove it, and any company that does not take that deal will be barred from having the ESPN app on any of their products. Governments will love it -- no more uncontrolled cryptography, no more Wikileaks, CALEA-style laws for computers, and a chance to spot political movements before they take hold.
"Free flow of information and low friction information searching certainly is one use case where the web is so so much better than apps can ever be in their current form"
You can just pay $1/mo. for a search engine app, right? It will have an integrated web browser/hook into the installed browser. Not much different from having a Bloomberg terminal on your desk, except that it would be terrible for consumers (but profitable for businesses).
"Lastly "apps" have always existed. Nintendo games..."
Gary McGraw has pushed the idea that the security systems seen in video games ultimately become the security systems on all consumer computing devices. At one time, this app store model was something only video game consoles had; now we see it on tablets, and soon we will see it in other form factors. Video game consoles have highly expensive, hard-to-buy "debug" versions and developer systems; is there any reason to think that such a system could not come to exist for other consumer electronics?
That is why I find the legal wrangling more worrying than anything else. Apple and Google can't stop me from inventing and popularizing a new technology, but the government can do a pretty good job of that, especially the second part.
Look at things like Raspberry Pi , ODROID and arduino. Very hackable stuff at rock bottom prices. With faster internet connectivity comes access to remote virtual machines which can be rented by the hour and make stuff like huge scale data processing accessible to the teenage hacker in his bedroom.
Ultimately the future will require more people to understand not just how to use the tech on a basic level but people who can innovate with it.
If the US doesn't do this , another nation will and be all the richer for it.
Of course there will always be a market for passive consumption type devices as well as specialised ones. It's just that these used to be radios , TVs , CD players , calculators and nintendo consoles now they are iPads.
This. While in one sense it is profitable to rope off technology and control it - having the general population embrace the skill set of working with computers is far more profitable overall for everyone.
In 100 years, every single person will have grown up in a world dominated by electronics with the presence of the internet. Being a fact of life makes the barrier of entry a lot lower than it is today when there are more options.
The bulk of the non-browser apps mentioned are ways to read things (NYT, WSJ, USA Today, AP News, WashPo, Kindle app).
That is, the bulk of the non-browser apps mentioned are more-or-less tarted-up browsers. So, for that matter, are the likes of Siri and Google Search.
I don't think it's the browser that's in danger here.
Seriously? Operating a centralized walled garden does not satisfy any definition of won messaging when you consider the architecture of the internet.
Nobody has won instant messaging until they all interoperate on the same capacity that email is interoperable, defined by an RFC.
Sure you can say "mobiles apps grew so and so". But then I can say that given the growth of a newborn child, 60 years old adult should be 50m tall.
Is the author suggesting that the web will die, and be replaced by thousands of special purpose apps that must be downloaded from the app store?
There is huge value in having a standard, indexed repository of information like the www. If I want to find some specific information I don't want to have to find and download a specific app every time.
Devices provide higher levels of abstraction from the tweak and tunables on the system, but only now are we seeing devices where there is no easy way to actually write code for them, on them. You can't write an iphone app on an actual iphone, and I don't know if you can compile an apk on Android (I know Java ides on Android exist, though).
About the only thing you can do is write web pages you can open locally. That still works. And I don't see walled apps overtaking the expanse of the internet - there is just too much content and experience only found surfing old crummy html documents you won't get on your walled garden facebook app experience. And Android is taking the smartphone market, while being relatively open for a platform with the rooting and loading of any apk you want (if you set the option).
Most likely they will do creative stuff involving grabbing some remote VMs and building systems where the underlying computer is not so relevant.
Trying to fit all media and information into one giant walled garden would be far too challenging for a single entity.
Ah, very good point.
Well, today's devices still lack the hacking essentials: pointer/mouse/variant, keyboard, large screen ; maybe a decade of advance will give us usable virtual keyboards/pointers/what-have-you, projection displays on all handhelds and THEN no manufacturer will able to hold back the onslaught of development environments that penetrate the walled gardens.
The real breakpoint is that you can't build software for the device on the device anymore, with the exception of web apps.
Right, but that's because the open source programmers don't see the point; if it's already a hassle to find and buy the proper hardware to turn your device into a full-blown ergonomic development environment, they figure it's not worth the effort to even think about software.
But if devices already come with easy to use virtual interfaces -- Google Glasses seems to solve the big screen problem, now we just need a virtual keyboard and mouse idea -- it's only a matter of time before veteran hackers say "This is ripe for a community, let's crack this baby open".
Three years ago the iPad didn't even exist.
Internet is not a human-computer interface. It is true that most native apps, non-browser apps on mobile and tablets use touch as the main point of interaction. And it is true that many people browse web via http or https using a keyboard and a mouse. But who knows how this will change in the future? People change. Web standards converges and diverges constantly. Technology evolves. Browsers today already do unthinkable things. There's no reason to completely assume that the primary HCI of web will remain as keyboard and mouse. Nor should we completely assume that the touch interface on tablets are the be it and end all method of interacting with native apps.
It will be interesting to see how today's kids get into content generation with less keyboard experience and I do believe that tablets will rose over huge chunks of the internet user experience--it is just too easy to consume content using one.
But the end the open web of google and web search? And the rise of the special purpose app for everything? I don't think so. Not as long as tablets ship with standards compliant browsers.
* TRS-80 Models I and III * VIC 20, C-64, C-128 * Apple II, II+, IIe, ... * CP/M systems based on the S-100 bus * IBM PC
and way too many others to mention. Eventually the PC and the Mac won out, except for a few Amiga fanatics and a specialized "workstation" marked served by vendors like Sun.
It seems the current state of things isn't nearly as fragmented as that!
For that matter, kids might still find machines with big displays and keyboards useful, since writing an essay or term paper on an iPad probably wouldn't be a very pleasant experience. (Or do kids not get writing assignments in school anymore?)
It's the nature of our market - or maybe our culture - for things to agglomerate and monopolize though. Just notice how it's more likely you're wearing shoes made by a multinational company, not the shoemaker next door, or even yourself.