Hacker News Reader

Comment by dewitt | Hacker News Reader

The crux of John's argument is this:

  "We should think of the web as anything transmitted using HTTP and HTTPS."

Which unfortunately, because there's hardly a single modern internet application or service that doesn't or can't run over HTTP(S), it inflates the definition of "web" to be so broadly inclusive that it becomes an altogether meaningless term.

It may be his intention to position native "apps" as something not in opposition to, but rather a part of, the web. But that does a disservice to the original meaning of the web, which thrived in large part because it wasn't just another native app connected to the net.

Instead, I'd recommend pushing back a bit, and trying to retain the other critical elements of what made the web the web, such as transparently introspectable formats, RESTful documentment-oriented architectures, hyperlinkable URLs, crawlability, freely-licensed and open protocols, etc.

View on HN

I agree. What John's describing as the web is more like the Internet. The "web" is Tim Berners-Lee's "World Wide Web" (ie. hyperlinked documents rendered in a web browser).

From the article:

> It’s possible that the word “web” is too tightly associated with HTML/CSS/JavaScript content rendered in web browsers — that if I want to make a semantic argument, I should be saying it’s the internet that matters, not the web. But I like calling it the web, even as it expands outside the confines of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. The web has always been a nebulous concept, but at its center is the idea that everything can be linked. So when I open Tweetbot on my iPhone and tap a link that opens within the app as a web page, and from that web page tap a link that opens a video in the YouTube app — that to me feels very webby.

It's almost like he addressed the exact arguments you guys are bringing up in the article linked above...

He makes his definition of what the web is very clear, and cites his reasons behind them. You might disagree with them, but he does actually address them, to his credit. Perhaps you might make an argument why your definition of the web is superior to his.

Fair question. I just posted a similar response in the comment below. Specially to your point here, it's because Tweetbot is actually the exception, not the rule, in that it arguably is part of the web.

The vast majority of native mobile apps are not. See http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/paid-apps for a good list of counter-examples.

I agree wholeheartedly. I do personally prefer the web for application delivery from a developer's standpoint, and I find it quite simple to create sites that function well on a mobile form factor. It's curious, then, that more don't exist. I'm no hyper-talented guru, and my apps are reasonably representative of most light-workload thin-client apps, so I'm unsure of the problem.

The biggest problem I've found with mobile apps built with browser technology, personally, is that they often give none of the affordances of a native app and none of the affordances of the web. They become so obsessed with poorly aping native technologies* that they often fail to play to their strengths - things like deep-linking, tabbed browsing, lightweight usage, hypermedia, and so on. I don't really get it.

I suspect that the reason is due to the fact that people who are good enough to write a mobile web app that works well are simply not doing so, either because that's not what they do or because they prefer working in native technologies. Meteor+Bootstrap+Hammer+basic googling gets you head and shoulders above most people in the mobile webapp world, but that's not the status quo, despite those being some of the easiest-to-use frameworks I've ever worked with in the web space.

I suspect, but I really just don't know. shrugs

* Yes, some are as good as mobile apps, and it's not very difficult to be vastly better than the vast majority of mobile web apps, but good web app UXs remain rare birds for whatever reason

Nobody claimed that mobile apps were all part of the web. The argument was in the context of cdixon argument (more people using the native versions of webby things on mobile than browser versions), maybe we should consider those native apps as part of the web.

The "Doc McStuffins" game is hardly a counter-example in that it doesn't replace anything that would be considered part of the web. The argument wasn't that all mobile apps are "the web."

Yea we could think of anything doesn't integrate well with the larger web as not the web.

That would mean Facebook, even when it uses HTML/CSS. And any other app that limits access when you're not registered. At least in Facebook's case there is a reason.

Games and many other types of apps that aren't part of the web today could be. Not in terms of running on HTML5/WebGL but their levels being indexed in search engines for example.

He addressed this. It's not just HTTP, it's the inclusion of web views of browser content and linking between apps that makes something webby as opposed to just an internet-enabled app.

It's entirely possible to build a native app that is "of the web". But not all apps are, even if they use HTTP. In fact, most apps are not. Just take a look at the most popular apps: http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/paid-apps/

How many of those could honestly be called "web" in any way at all? 5%? 10%? It's a stretch to claim otherwise.

Who claimed that any of those apps were part of the web?

It's not just the number of apps. It's the cumulative hours spent in them. As Gruber pointed out, Facebook is winning big here, and their apps are webby.

As a category, games are used a lot and non webby. That would be the main counterpoint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com