Mobile Gatekeepers
One of the things we try to avoid in our investments is gatekeepers. We would prefer that a company has easy access to end users and doesn't need to navigate through a gatekeeper or a series of gatekeepers to get into the market.
Mobile internet investing has been tricky for as long as I have been doing Internet investing. Initially it was the carriers and handet manufacturers who controlled access to the end user. If you wanted to be in the mobile internet business, you spent your time working with carriers and handset manufacturers to get distribution. We didn't like that business and didn't invest in it.
With the advent of the iOS app store model, we saw a change in the market and changed our stance. To date, we have at least a dozen investments where mobile apps represent an important part of the user base.
But in the past ten days, I have seen three different situations, not just in our portfolio but with companies I've met with or know well, where the company's app was either not approved or pulled from the market. This is not limited to the iOS app store. It has also happened in the Android marketplace. And of course, we have seen RIM's removal of a Blackberry app create great harm to a portfolio company.
These actions are always taken in attempt to enforce terms of service and to protect end users. I am not complaining about the actions or saying they are unfair. They are what they are. But the mobile Internet is not the open web and may never be.
Welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Comments (Archived):
I’m not deeply engaged with mobile apps and the distribution model. If apps are not approved by and available through official app stores is there no other way to market for the apps? Is an app store more a technical distribution pipeline or a marketing shop window?
On Apple the appstore is the only option aside for development testing which can sideload.
The Financial Times story (about moving from an App to HTML5) fits well on this topic. But until full mobile HTML5 converts into a reality the fight will be necessary.
Got a link please?
The last one was on TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2011/…There is a previous one on GigaOm: http://gigaom.com/apple/fin…
The FT Times app was pulled from the App store later, fyi because FT didn’t want to pay the subscription fees to Apple. http://www.ipodnn.com/artic…But in my personal opinion, although it was a good example of a pure HTML5 app, it was badly designed and was a pain to use. The UI dynamics are a bit tricky with HTML5 because you’ve got so much freedom on what to do with that page, it’s also a slippery slope for UI.
If I remember well there was an issue with Amazon Kindle too?
I think its important to remember the until HTML5 apps figure out a better way to emulate native apps, they become bandwidth hogs and are bad for the network in general but slow the particular app experience in particular.
A million peeps don’t seem to mind the FT experience.
What data are you basing this on- downloads or usage? And are we talking about the FT App store App or the HTML5 one that you get by pointing your browser to http://app.ft.com? If it’s the latter, that one is absolutely dreadful to use. It takes a while to download the 50MB it needs to get going and that’s only the start of its flaws.
It’s not the best, but I still find it pretty okay.It works well when you are on Wifi vs 3g. Not ideal, but still not so bad.
Html5 deserves better
Definitely a trade-off. We read about the FT app in my eBusiness class and I have the web app on my phone (http://app.ft.com). Yes it is not as “sleek” as a native app, and takes some time to load, but I think it depends on the content. It works for me because I use the app to access FT stories that are updated throughout the day….that’s pretty much it.You mentioned universally native mobile apps earlier. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen one, but it sounds pretty cool – are there any you recommend?
I just made up “Universally native mobile App”. I think Gmail is one example. It uses HTML5 to the hill and well done.
Ha! I was looking forward to checking one of those UNMA’s out… I did not realize that about Gmail but you’re right – Google Voice is another example. It will be interesting to see how far these web apps will come and if they actually change the game.
Whats worse is if your mobile web is as good as your app, apple will not aporove the app
That will be the Apple App store’s demise right there.
patents stifle innovation
The principle of the granting of patents is a good one. The ‘first to file’ idea encourages public disclosure in return for rights. There is a twisted reality to the world of patents though.
Mobile is at the whim of platform developers. But so are Facebook apps at the whim of Facebook. How did this impact your decision to invest in Zynga?
I thought myspace would be a strong second platform. I was wrong.
I assumed it was this theory that propelled Zynga recent attempt to become its own gaming platform.
I’d say the mobile app-based internet is not the open web and may never be. But the browser based mobile internet is basically as open as the open web is. There is a huge difference.
Thats the great hope
The convergence of devices will meet in the middle in a very short period of time.Phones will get a bit bigger and become simply little tablets. They will deliver computer performance. Already one can read email and get the message perhaps excepting big attachments.Tablets will become more phone like and become little tablets w identical phone capabilities. Almost there with Bluetooth capabilities.Convergence!
CELLULAR BANDWIDTH IS LIMIT TO MOBILE WEB APP, NOT PROCESSOR.NO ONE WANT USE APP THAT TAKE 10 MINUTES TO DOWNLOAD WHEN OPEN IT.
We exchange access to a huge organized user base for some freedom and a risk of being screwed by Apple, Google, Microsoft, RIM, etc. Business as usual 🙂
As the natural Facebook/Google/Microsoft/Apple(add one or two companies here) oligopoly on the internet grows the chance for gatekeepers on the internet as a whole is going to grow. I think what we are seeing in the mobile app market is just a foreshadowing of more control from big companies thats going to come in the future. The internet is becoming more app-based, and as it does, the controllers of those app services are going to have a larger influence on openness. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the internet stays free from government intervention, the lack of openness is probably going to be mostly quality control. Big internet/tech/media co’s aren’t going to hurt their customers by depriving them of content and apps they want, but they also aren’t going to let them use apps that are low quality and dilute the total internet experience.
Big internet/ tech/ media co’s might try to slap down categories of apps with characteristics that could erode their hegemony over time. They’re not going let the trojan horse inside the gates.
Very true. But thats the beauty of the internet… if somethings really a great idea and a threat its gonna pop-up alongside the big power, and force the co to integrate it somewhat…
History has so much to teach us, and it’s interesting to observe how patterns of human behavior repeat themselves again and again over time, and that we are fallable. Facebook and Google are city states defending themselves with thick and high walls against all identifiable threats from the outside. In the end though they always crumble. That’s the motivation, knowing that they always crumble. It’s a game (like chess), finding the way to win against what seem like bad odds.
Best way is the Trojan Horse approach maybe you mentioned before?Get inside their walls without them even knowing it.The Goliath’s like google/facebook Makes you love the Tumblr’s, Disqus and Twitter’s of the world
Remember that the city-states used intermarriage as a means of diminishing threat. The Internet city-states will buy or otherwise embrace the best apps and make them core benefits or capabilities of their own offerings.In many ways, the Internet is replicating at a much faster pace the historic development of free market businesses with a few of their ills — monopolies, unfair competition — thrown in and re-tried again.
You are outlining a big fear of mine
Me too:But like almost every other industry(and as jasonpwright mentioned political system… after-all there are very few differences here with statecraft), looks like this is what’s going to happen… My question is, if were going to end up in a semi-closed internet world, doesn’t that give an advantage to cleaner, better put together, universes(such as Apple/iOS) which don’t even pretend to be open?
WINDOWS, MAC, PLAYSTATION, XBOX, WII, GAMEBOY.NONE OPEN.ALL HAVE GREAT SOFTWARE.
I fear this scenario too, but I still hope we can see something like what happened in the microprocessor development world, which was the leading tech industry before the internet era: in order to become some platform’s developer you had to be approved as a company, after a deep investigation aimed to discover if you were worth to get the honour to be allowed to spend thousands $ to buy evaluation boards and software licences. A freelance had to fight hard to get samples, specs and code, as spare parts from distributors.When the big players began to fail, some large manufacturers discovered the power of the open source communities, and gave them low cost platforms and open source base systems.Someone is still behaving like before, and his platform is less used than others (Texas Instruments opened its own platforms, Samsung did not, you had to pay and beg for support in development and, as a result, the Galaxy Nexus is based on a Texas Instruments chipset). Well, I hope the internet business comes to a similar awareness.
In domains this has already happened. If you want to start a new TLD’s if you don’t get godaddy to put it on their home page you chances of success are limited because of the % of the market that they control. “Use Go Daddy as the registry and get guaranteed shelf space on GoDaddy.com, which registers half of all new domain registrations.”http://domainnamewire.com/2…Of course the mass of end users don’t really care about any TLD but .com so what we are talking about here is the potential to sell people a domain in a TLD that is near worthless.
Agreed. While the iPad was a big leap forward in so many ways, it was also giant leap backwards from the open web to AOL’s walled garden, circa 1995. Very disconcerting.
Yea but as long as were living in a closed world, I’d rather chill in Apple’s advanced, powerful, user friendly, pretty walled garden. And in many ways a closed world is better… Steve Jobs certainly thought so!
advanced, powerful, user friendly, pretty are not the first thoughts on my mind when I think of the Apple store. Walled, yes.
I don’t know… I have no qualms searching or browsing for apps on any of my Apple devices. It’s not exactly cumbersome.But I was talking more about iOS in general than the app store with those adjectives.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
The iPad was the most recent shot fired in the convergence revolution from main frame to desktop to laptop to tablet to smartphone.Soon, they will all meet in the middle w/ the iPad being the first step toward that middle.Convergence — it’s whats for dinner in the next 3 years.
Very true. But I think we’re going to eventually want to have our convergence and our openness too. 😉
Convergence is outcome. Openness is politics. Hope for both.
Actually, I don’t know that I care about openness from the political perspective. :)But if you look at the incredible advances that the iPad offers, one of the steps forward to convergence has been starting from scratch with utter simplicity. It’s why I’ve often said the iPad is cool “despite running baby software.”I think the next wave of growth in convergence is going to be delivering power and flexibility in a simple way.Whoever cracks that code is going to be very, very rich. And deservedly so.
What counts as low quality for someone is different than for others. Were movies before the fall of the Hays Code and the studio system or after better?Quality should be user defined. Not bigco defined.
That’s valid. But I think it depends on the situation. Users don’t all have the time, care or expertise to do due diligence on every app they use. That’s why we often embrace the safety (or perceived safety) of app stores.
I think your faith in big internet/tech/media companies is a bit too high. If you have ever sat in a biz dev session with a carrier you would understand what I mean. They have always had the fundamental attitude that THEY control the customer. They teach it to their employees, and it is in their blood. It is no different than the attitude Google has about controlling the SERP, which is control of the customer. This will be a shelf space game, and distribution priority will have its price. And big companies WILL hurt their customers by depriving them if the app provider is not willing to pay for the distribution.How did Bing wind up baked in native to Verizon devices last year? Pretty simple…Microsoft paid for it. The fact that the Bing app consumed huge amounts of memory in the mobile device and forced users to have to upgrade memory was, of course, beside the point. To the carriers, customers are just the “marks.”Without some sort of Gov. intervention to require open access of APPs to any device, I think we are back to the old game and the same old boss. This would be like net neutrality for mobile.
Do the gatekeepers provide any guidance or feedback when pulling or rejecting the app? If not, how terribly frustrating. The gatekeepers in this seem to function much like a government regulator. This makes me imagine a scenario where deep-pocketed developers hire lobbyists to help get their apps approved.
Often little or no information is provided
There’s always a chasm to leap in discovering your audience.Building it on the open web by aggregating an interested community. Sitting on another platform. Paying to play.Risks all of them. I’m with you that I’d prefer to challenge the wide open web then have to join a club that I really don’t have any control over.
Just one more reason HTML will win on mobile.
Sure hope so
If only we could get the other gatekeepers (mobile phone carriers, handset manufactuers, etc.) to open the phones so the camera and other functionality would be accessible from mobile web, there would be no stopping us.
Both HTML and a large scale neutral cloud services provider is what it takes. Amazon, again?
No, it will be like another App store. I think the solution is a white-labelled download platform that you plug into. Could be Amazon that does it, but not as a centralized point.
The question is, how many Android users are switching to the Amazon App Store? You’d be likely to get a tenth of that many switchers from the default app store without a company like Amazon behind HTML5. And why would Amazon want to back it?
Perhaps a biological system is a good way of looking at an app store and an app. The store is the host and the app needs to be inside the host to…replicate. The app store may say it screens for quality control, but I’m sure its screen is primarily to detect for parasitic threat.
Great analogy. Well played!
But can I assume that you would not mind investing in a business that can become the gatekeeper. I argue that the free money world that sustains the venture capital business is what is facilitating such monopolistic gatekeeper businesses.Sekar vembu
Hmm. That would beat the point in a way, I think. More money sure. But only for the short term. Gatekeepers are not here to stay. Great business that disrupt them are.
WILD WEST IS GREAT PLACE FOR COWBOYS.THERE REASON REST OF POPULATION NEVER MOVE THERE.
i don’t aspire to be an investor in any gatekeeper. i think it is shortsighted. a long sustainable model is a market where everyone wins
You probably don’t mean that in a strict sense of course which is fine.Google is a gatekeeper. And duckduckgo.com is hoping to be a “general purpose search engine that is intended to be your starting place when searching the Internet.” which if they are able to achieve that would qualify duckduckgo as a gatekeeper. Interesting thought that while the top hit for “usv” on google is usv.com, on ddg it doesn’t appear until #18 with a link to a page about Christine Cacciopo.
Knowing one of the situations you’re referring to, I’d add that the crazy thing is the seemingly arbitrary nature by which apps are accepted, rejected, and/or promoted. I’ve got an editorial background; sometimes I think that my core archetype is a writer. So I really appreciate the importance of editorial control; curation, if you will.In another instance, I know of a company whose app was supposed to be promoted editorially. They were told to get ready. They delayed release and lined up press only to then have be told that, no, the app wasn’t going to be promoted at all.Instances like that, or to have an app yanked for seemingly no reason (with no communication from one of the gatekeepers), is a real challenge for the ecosystem. I sympathize with the gatekeepers. I’m sure they are barely keeping up with the explosive demand. But they do need to focus on their processes better or the ecosystem could break down.
This chaos is typical of the evolution of embryonic processes finding their own sense of environmental order.When order is made from chaos, value appears.There are numerous examples of making order from chaos such as industry associations, standardization, design conventions and even unions. Yes, unions.The formation of such conventions has imposed order on chaotic environments.
Apple has an opportunity to improve their App store by making it like a real supermarket, or their dominance on choking the App downloads will start to evaporate. The Apple store has a become a warehouse that’s crammed into a store. I don’t know the last time you have been in a warehouse, but it’s not that easy to find anything. It might as well be called App junkyard while we’re trashing it.
As bad as the Apple iTunes store is, I find the Android market to be even worse.
If only someone at Google knew something about searching large data sets.
Poor cousin 😉
If only…hey, I’ll bet they could pick up a few engineers from Yahoo. Folks must be jumping ship there.
Considering how good Apple is at other things, it really is remarkable at how much iTunes is like a flea market rather than a well ordered retail operation.
Flea market – yeah. It’s a better description than warehouse.
What about the “order” that goes into a tradeshow layout?”Which end do I start”. “Was I down that aisle yet?” “Wow that big booth right in the middle just messed me up, where should I go now?”All the things mentioned (supermarket, @JLM:disqus flea market, tradeshow) have the same things in common. They are designed by people who are to familiar with the process (used to happen at airport approaches on highways as well). You need to get unfamiliar people involved in the design as well and track their movements and eyeballs to come up with a good experience for a novice.
Well said…even as I was writing I realized that we’re in one of those “ordering the chaos” moments.It reminds me a bit of the order (and pain) that iTunes imposed (directly and indirectly) on the digital distribution of music. It did makes things easier, safer but it inevitably reduced innovation and diversity.It feels like we’re headed in the same direction, only the velocity is greater.
IT IMPORTANT REMEMBER APP STORE NEVER APPLE PLAN.IT AFTERTHOUGHT GRAFTED ONTO IPHONE WHEN DEVELOPERS REJECT APPLE PLAN FOR ONLY HTML5 APPS.APPLE VERY SLOW TO FULLY EMBRACE IDEA FORCED ON THEM. MAYBE COOK BETTER AT IT THAN STEVE.
Gatekeepers can be a major problem in any B2B commodity reseller channel.Often the only credible supplier to a market is an oligopoly provider e.g. the energy utilities market. They tend to sell services as we-can-do-it-all packages because they are “one-stop shops”. By their nature they have to be a jack of all trades and so manage to be masters of none other than at commodity resale admin – which some still deftly screw-up ;)Detail is often sub-contracted in packages to specialists (like ourselves shameless plug : http://kWIQly.com ) The difficulty is that as commodity providers they become very jealous of client relationships. As a result they attempt to abstract client need to generics and sometime miss the point in a “chinese-whispers” like manner. The churn they suffer self-perpetuates as each comes from a culture of driving cost down rather than value up.Is this why call centers suffer lowest common denominator problems ? – I think so !The silver lining – this creates opportunity for laser focussed disruptive entrepreneurs, who love to out-service a sleeping marketplace
Apple, particularly, is old school about privacy so it rejects a lot of apps that may open the floodgates to consumer data in the cloud. Jobs believed in asking the consumer about app permissions repeatedly. “Are you sure you want to download this?” Customer response: “Actually, maybe not;)”
Can you tell us Why this happened: “But in the past ten days, I have seen three different situations, not just in our portfolio but with companies I’ve met with or know well, where the company’s app was either not approved or pulled from the market.” What were the reasons or circumstances?
Hi,I think the evolution of apps distribution behaves as a tidal wave, where initially when an industry is born there are fewer and stronger gatekeepers (first wave) who basically use their power to serve their interests brutally and these were initially the OS providers and the carriers. Then when the industry grows (like now) we have app stores which are effective distribution vehicles to diffrent audiences with less strict rules but still bent to serve their controlling long term interest. Eventually if app will become a real commodity where all digital functionality eventually will be transformed to apps then I believe it will expand the distribution circle into self publishing where the today’s app stores will be only platforms serving publishers. Same as wordpress is today for bloggers. My personal opinion is that apps in their current form will not expand beyond appstores but soon they will take a different shape smaller functional packages and this will be the next website.Dudu
In that case, screw App stores and we need a new white-label distribution mechanism that you hang your App to, and they serve the downloads. And I’m sure they can charge less than 30% and make a ton of money. That may be a new opportunity for a new intermediary that works for the App owner nor the App store landlord. That doesn’t solve the marketing problem, but that’s ok because App stores lists were only good for the top sellers anyways and their search sucks.If Yogi Bera observed App stores, he would say “No one goes there anymore- it’s too crowded”.
“A white-label distribution mechanism that you hang your app to, and they serve the downloads. And I’m sure they can charge less than 30% and make a ton of money”Sir, you have just described Google. Maybe all they need is a way to index apps(HTML5)
Yes & no. Google is a not a hosted platform for downloading software. Google indexes. Unless you are referring to Google’s App Engine?
Fred,The problem with that approach is the fact that most of what we currently do as consumers and the areas most in need of innovation are those where the existing industry players are key to success, from content creators such as music and TV to the daily life of shopping and payments.If someone gets the key players to play ball the user uptake is phenomenal followed immediately by the profits potential.It is though an extremely high barrier to entry.
It is the same as wit the mobile carriers. There are only 3-10 (Depending on where you live) big players that control the rest.It can ruin a lot of other businesses.Same is the case with the mobile app industry. It gets distributed via a small amount of build in apps and goes via the same players for approval. And as long as that is going to be the case and no else is able to bring a different player in, it will be the gatekeepers that will run the show sadly.I hope that there will be a different market that can break through. Maybe a business that is building a mobile OS like Android or iOS that can compete with those and is able to acquire a big amount of users and an even bigger amount of developers. We shall see in 5 years time how the world has shifted.
It is the nature of all companies to want to secure monopolies for their products & services. No matter the buzz words of day or words to the contrary it is still most companies intention to tie you up one way or another.Everyone railed at MSFT for 10 years but GOOG has spent the last 5 years trying to become them and weirdly MSFT them.
Yup. There’s always the bully in the playground. This one. Then the next.
new boss, same as the old boss
I hope App stores are dead. I think we’re seeing the separation of Distribution from Marketing in mobile Apps. Apple has muddied the waters straddling both, but that end is near. Show me a good App I need, and I will find a way to get it downloaded without the App store. And HTML5 is an answer, but not the only answer.
Hold on a sec William.Roll the clock back to when we sold atoms into distribution at Fry’s or Computer City or wherever.You paid for distribution. You paid for aisle placement. You paid under the line for spiffs.But…no-one in their right mind considered that the end of marketing. We worked the press, the developer community, the enthusiast groups for awareness to drive to the channel to transact because there was no other way.Successful apps in the apps stores do that today as well.Sure it’s perfect when marketing and distribution and product consumption are all embraced in the network. Not often true.Are you really saying that the Apple way of business is ending and that the dream of interlaced marketing and transaction and community is upon us?
Actually, I think that marketing Apps will become even more important going forward because the bundling of distribution & marketing within app stores is not enough. Being in an app store doesn’t guarantee success nor visibility.Imagine what might happen if Google exposed Apps in their search results. Of course, it’s fat chance that they would mine the Apple App store, but if Apps were free standing, I want to find them during a regular search- whether on Google or DuckDuckGo.
Astute statement William.The reason the cost of distribution in the app store percent wise is out of whack is just that. It’s all transaction and no visibility.If discovery was fixed, if the apps store became a true marketplace, the percent to pay, while still high, would be more palatable. But yes…and that’s my point. Relying on your channel to discover your customers is less and less a reality. And giving over that ownership of the customer to your channel…well, just plain nuts.
ME HATE BREAK NEWS, BUT FIND APP FROM APP STORE IN GOOGLE HAPPEN YEARS AGO.ME FIND APP THAT WAY ALL TIME.
But Google isn’t indexing the App itself. It’s indexing the company behind it, right?
Google indexes the application listings from Apple’s App StoreExample of Google Earth:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google…
I had no idea because I never saw this succinctly. Thank you.
INDEX PAGE FOR APP IN STORE. SHOW UP FOR MATCHING TERMS.THAT WHAT YOU WANT? OR MEAN SOMETHING LIKE SEARCH PRIVATE DATA OF EACH PERSON APP?
“ME” not typical of most out there.
Everyone’s got someone or some interests to protect, be it your kids, your userbase, revenue, etc.In distribution deals online there has always been this grey area of “who owns the user and user data”, as IF users are exclusive to services.We create or uncover data from publishers and their users’ behavior that they wouldn’t otherwise see or collect. Yet this is called “publisher data”.
‘Gatekeepers’ is just another way of saying ‘these guys invested time and money into a product and now have leverage over the market so we’re going to try to avoid them.’Duh.
yup. over reach and developers will try to avoid themplatform owners need to be careful
the open web is the same; don’t play by google’s rules, or accidentally violate them, and you get de-listed from the search engines. violate youtube’s rules, or give the appearance that you are, and poof! bye goes your youtube channel. you either get acquired/licensed to operate within a gatekeeper or you roll your own gatekeeper. net neutrality hinders the development of your own gatekeeper, which is why it is a flawed policy objective. the world of tightly integrated platforms is upon us. let us rejoice, for this world frees us from the nation-state so that a a multitude of cyberutopias can be created. #fs
i don’t think it is that badmany services get more traffic from social media than google these days
Same principle- – ie twitter or whoever can cut you off too. Basically, web or mobile, the game is still about platforms — and platforms can control. There are more platforms on the web, but mobile is still early. U,timately though there is no real distinction IMHO b/w web and mobile, it is all the internet and subject to the same analytical framework.
It’s a lot starker though in the device app world.There are a plethora of distribution opportunities in the web world and they compete. Google got you down? Use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Reddit. Or…There is exactly one app store on Apple’s platform. One on Google’s platform. One on Amazon’s platform.So while you’re correct that the same thing can happen outside of mobile, it’s a lot more likely inside of mobile.
I think android will result in mass proliferation of platforms…what the apple cult refers to as fragmentation…..amzn kindle fire is the first step here, I expect others to follow and fork android to create their own highly curated ecosystem
And if we do web apps right, it won’t matter so much.The “fragmentation” of the web has certainly helped the Mac make a huge comeback.
Fred – Have you invested in any mobile-web startups? I’m from South Africa (one of the largest mobile markets in the world) and we’re seeing a massive uptake in mobile-web over apps. Obviously in the emerging markets, or “the last billion”, apps are a small faction of the market and one that is very tough to get to and then monetize. So many startups, like mine, focus on the mobile web as a primary entry point to the market. Obviously this takes away the discovery opportunity of the app stores but it also means we are in control of our product and not reliant on staying in the apps stores to have a product.
Quite a few of our portfolio companies have fully featured mobile web apps Etsy and Twitter are good examples
I have been saying for years (and have been frequently derided) for saying the downloaded app are unnecessary for most use cases and will be supplanted by mobile optimized web apps in the near future.
Agreed. Once universally native mobile apps or mobile optimized become more widespread and easier to develop, for sure. When we say mobile optimized, we need to also think of another layer which is device-optimized, eg iPad needs a different optimization than vanilla mobile.
Totally agree – and the percentage will continue to grow in correlation with HTML5’s capabilities.
It’s actually surprising this isn’t happening sooner.
Another issue with apps is piracy. I tried an add network last week where you’re supposed to pay only for paid downloads of your app. Over a couple of days there were 14 downloads but only 10 were tracked by iTunes Connect, i.e., the rest were pirated downloads on jail broken devices. Not going to launch a new app for the new capabilities we’re adding to Portfolio Armor. Might make a mobile web version though.
didn’t even realize there was a debate as to wether html5 is going to be the default for web apps on mobile.apps via the app store = desktop software. no thanks!
Perfect analogy!
Only in the sense that they are both locally installed, which isn’t evil. In fact, most local apps function better than their web counterpart. The issue with mobile apps is that the OS creator has powers over them don’t exist under the desktop paradigm. Bill Gates can’t pull Open Office off of your machine but Apple can pull the Google Voice app. If that particular issue was fixed then mobile apps would be much better.
Can’t wait until this happens.This is coming from an avid web hacker that can’t quite stomach objective c or verbose java after years of c++.
How about the other way around? Would you consider some of your market place investments gatekeepers in their own way?
I sure hope not
Which suggests that Amazon & the Financial Times have the right idea.
This is why HTML5 will be big.
The app and app store is too easy for end users.
It is right now.
There should be no difference. Let’s not confuse programming language with distribution.Web apps can look, feel and act identically to device apps.They can be discovered and installed via an app store.And if you want to charge for your app, there’s no reason you couldn’t take the HTML5 off the public web and make it available exclusively through an app store.
NO WEB APP HAVE SAME ACCESS TO OS AS NATIVE.FOR SOME APPS, NOT MATTER.BUT MANY APPS IMPOSSIBLE FOR WEB. THIS MEAN APP STORE ALWAYS BE THERE, UNLESS SOMEONE INVENT NEW WEB-CENTRIC OS.
Yes. If you note my other comment, I was talking about the apps that don’t need deep hardware access. I’d guess that’s 60% of today’s apps.
ME FORGET DEEPER RAMIFICATION OF STATEMENT.1. LOTS OF APPS MUST BE NATIVE2. APP STORE NEVER GO AWAY3. USERS HATE USE 2 THINGS FOR 1 THING. 4. USERS ONLY USE APP STORE, IGNORE WEB APPSTHAT IS CENTRAL ISSUE.
1. Why? Why can’t we put those APIs into HTML5? If all phones have gyroscopes, make a GYRO tag. Make a CAMERA tag. We should be able to get the need for native apps down to about 10% of the app population over time. Yes, this doesn’t fit Apple’s competitive desires, but they’ve committed to HTML5 and I don’t think they’ll have a choice but to keep that commitment if they want to maintain relevancy. 2. Nor should it.3. Of course. Web apps and native apps should be distributed through the app store. But if you run across an app in your browser and want to install it there, that’s fine too. Some web apps shouldn’t even be available on the web if you want to charge for them. Put the HTML5 files exclusively through the app store. But write them with HTML5 so you can put them in other app stores too.
GIVE APIS TO HTML5 NOT IMPOSSIBLE. ALSO NOT HAPPEN YET.LOTS WORK HAPPENING TO FIX. WHEN DONE? NOT KNOW.MAIN PROBLEM IS CONTROL OF APIS IN HANDS WITH NO MOTIVATION FOR / GOOD REASON NOT TO EXPOSE THEM TO HTML5.
then aren’t you a form of google’s b***h?
“Welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss”Well we all eat shit we just eat it at different tables. And over time you can always pay for a better table at a better restaurant.Isn’t it obvious that this is headed in the direction of pay for placement or promotion similar to what happened with search engines in the 90’s? I remember a discussion with someone from excite who very emphatically stated that there would never be a way to get promoted on the site by payment. Or to have your site indexed quicker by paying an extra fee. Maybe if excite had pioneered that they would still be around (in the original form).https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/…I remember a blogger who thought the idea of paying for promoted posts was outlandish. (Image attached.) In the end as @awaldstein:disqus said below “You paid for distribution. You paid for aisle placement. You paid under the line for spiffs.”I think that’s natural when things get so large that there needs to be a way to separate the men from the boys. Having handed out spiff money (always cash) it was a very effective way to move your product at the retail level. And so are slotting bribes to super markets.One of the reasons by the way that the yellow pages was a such a great resource over the years (in certain categories at least) was that you paid for ads. That cut down on the spamming and increased the quality. And yes you needed a certain amount of money to get that first ad but what’s wrong with that? Lean doesn’t mean everything is free.The initial free bit is just to achieve critical mass. That will all change.
Really well said!
I’m cracking up at the qvc. avc== place where my mom buys here stuff *giggle*I don’t think it is necessarily a bad model to have sponsored listings used judiciously. I just think we should be working on better organic methods in a social enviroment. Why is it an app stroe and not an app search, down to the adwords model?
“Why is it an app stroe (sic) and not an app search, down to the adwords model?”You actually need both. Think physical products for a second. A store is basically a browsing model. It’s involves impulse buys and things that you don’t even know that you need. You know a variation of what Jobs would say. Now with one type of shopping situation you can definitely use search “I need a GE Reveal 75 Watt bulb”. I know that I need that bulb so I can now search for it online and have it delivered by Amazon without going to a store. For that I want search I don’t want browse. In another mode of shopping “I need a way to fix the screws that are stripped in a loose door hinge” I’m not sure what I need. I don’t even know what the putty is called or what I am trying to do exactly or if it can even be done. If I go to a hardware store though (or a web store) I might trip on it and figure it out (even without the hardware guy helping me or from the packaging) So for that I need a store where I can browse. Anyway similar to that you need a store when you don’t even know what is out there to get exposure to new things that you stumble on. So that store can be physical (like an Apple store where you can discover and learn) or on the web where the same thing can happen. Now once you know enough to know what you want a search model works well. One of the things I’ve always done is occasionally walk through Lowes or Home Depot and try to discover things that I might use to solve some problem or make some process more efficient. I don’t even know what I am looking for or if I will find anything. I do the same thing walking through a Barnes and Noble as I’m sure everyone has done. (Sorry but even thought the selection is greater online with computer books you can’t browse them other than a few pages. You can’t flip through the whole book.)”cracking up at the qvc” – so QVC that’s a browsing model (or spoon fed whatever you want to call it). And look how well that works with your Mom! (admit it she’s addicted, right!!).One thought I had for how to get apps sold would be with direct response ad decks, direct mail card packs. Forgetting for a second the free apps there is no question that a card pack with 100 cards featuring different apps might easily be cost effective and worth a try (someone needs to get a quantity of apps together and do the mailing of course it couldn’t be done by just one app writer for obvious reasons). These tend to work by exposing people to things they didn’t even know they needed.
I wrote this beautiful post and f**** DIsqus screwed up, again! Will someone tell the guys at Disqus that responding on an iPad is important and needs to be tested with each changed. Every couple of months I have to report to them that their system doesn’t work anymore on an iPad.
I know the feeling. And the anger from that happening immediately clears recent brain memory so you can’t reconstruct the emotion of what you were trying to say. I try to always do a “copy” before hitting “post” just in case anything like that happens. But they do need to fix that.
It wouldn’t let me do a copy. It wouldn’t let me change the text in my message. It would only let me post.
Elia I’ve got something for you that you might like. Will email u.
Please do! elia (at) infinitysw (dot) com
I don’t post from an ipad. But are you are saying you can’t select the text in the post box and do a “copy” to hold in memory in case something gets screwed up?
Yes.
Just verified that on an iphone1) *you can* “copy” something in a post box but you *can’t* paste that “copy” in another “reply” window.2) you can paste the “copy” though in a notes document. Problem needs to be solved but I thought I mention that.
Heres an answer: If disqus ran on a great app you wouldn’t have that issue probably!
Don’t disagree but it’s also frustrating as a developer to have each mobile browser with these idiotic little differences that require so much testing.HTML5 should be HTML5.
The pains of developing. It is just like having to make sure our products run on every OS and device variation. That’s the cost of doing a good job and having a usable product.
It’s true. Just annoying. Not looking forward to that part of my future budget – buying a bunch of devices just for testing purposes.
I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing – as bad as it is for developers, it does force people to upgrade and push technology forward.
I’m writing my post again… rrrrr….Every start-up deals with walled gardens. Deal with it.Some start-ups deal with App Store walled gardens. Some start-ups deal with competitive walled gardens. Others have to deal with supplier versions. That is a fact of life. Thus is the life of a start-up. Is it dangerous to base our businesses on a model we can’t control? Yes! But starting a company is a dangerous endeavor.I was destroyed by Palm in a previous lifetime, three times in one year to be exact, and once that would have changed the landscape for 6-12 math and science education (so had a bigger impact than just my company). I counted on the company to help make my own. Sometimes those bets pay off and sometimes that don’t.If you are going to develop a native app, the reality is you are counting on Apple, Google, RIM or Microsoft to help make your business happen. It is a business risk and should be considered.(My original post was much better written.)
Not every startup. We try very hard to avoid this and we make quite a few investments
The majority of today’s apps can run on HTML5. Go use Facebook Mobile. It’s almost at parity with the app. So much that I uninstalled the app from my Android.The key thing we need for mobile web apps to flourish is parity with device apps. Not at the API level, just at the UI level.I should be able to “install” web apps to my device, which would give them:- an icon on the home screen- equal status as an app instead of a tab in the browser- no browser latency when loading- full offline functionalityYes, we need to bring more hardware access into HTML5. But this is an important place to start and I’d venture to guess that >60% of apps would work this way today.
Great observations Aaron & I agree! But Facebook has 2700 employees of which a very large number are developers.
Don’t you think you need fewer developers to build on one platform rather than three or four?
Probably true for a startup, but the Facebook app is a mother of an App with 800 million users & tons of interdependencies. I once heard FB say they have some # of employees just doing debugging around the clock.
THIS SPECIFIC TO FACEBOOK.ORIGINAL CODEBASE = PILE OF CRAP DUCT TAPED TOGETHER.FB NEVER GET REBUILT FROM SCRATCH. SO ENTIRE THING NOW DUCT TAPE AND CRAP ALL THE WAY DOWN.THAT VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENT METHOD.
I don’t fully understand the duct tape analogy & why it’s more expensive. Do you mind elaborating? Thanks
I think what you are trying to say it’s a clusterfuck…..like the IRS computer system and the air traffic control computer system.
DUCT TAPE:1. BUILD BAD CODE2. BAD CODE FORCE NEW CODE DO BAD THINGS, USE BAD WORK AROUNDS.3. MORE BAD CODE ON TOP. MORE WORK AROUNDS. EACH WORK AROUND HAVE UNPREDICTABLE COLLISION WITH OLD WORK AROUNDS. BECAUSE WORK AROUND NOT GLOBAL, LOGICAL SOLUTION. IT CRAZY, SPECIFIC HACK.4. TRY TO CLEAN OUT WORKAROUNDS REQUIRE REBUILD FROM SCRATCH. NO CAN AFFORD. SO MORE AND MORE ENGINEERS DEVOTED TO FIND BUGS, BUILD MORE WORK AROUNDS. EACH NEW WORK AROUND MULTIPLY TOTAL INSTABILITY OF ENTIRE CODE BASE.RESULT: SOME DAY IN NEAR FUTURE ALL OF FACEBOOK SUFFER UNRECOVERABLE COLLAPSE, BE DOWN FOR WEEKS. MAYBE FOREVER.
Kicking the can down the road. Like with crumbling infrastructure (as a result of deferred maintenance for example) the current regime will be somewhere else when the collapse happens.
EVERYTHING YOU WRITE AVAILABLE NOW.ME, GRIMLOCK, HAVE DONE.LOOK OTHER PLACE FOR REASON WEB APPS NOT TAKE OFF.
Sorry, but I don’t see where this is done now.When I go to Amazon Cloud Reader, which is trying to be a web app, a simple button in my browser needs to offer the choice to install the app (instead of a random message box that loads some times and not others, and offers arcane messages about whether or not to give it data storage 50MB at a time). The EXACT SAME web app should be in the app store for one-tap download and install. One app, available via browser or app store. Choice of programming language should not drive choice of distribution channel. Further, when I load that app, it shouldn’t load inside the browser. It should load as its own multi-tasked app with its own icon. It should be locally loaded so I have zero latency or delay if I’m on a subway. And it should work seamlessly offline. Even though it’s written in HTML5 and executing inside of a browser sandbox. This doesn’t exist today, as far as I know. (Please correct me if so.)
I don’t have examples of applications that are using this but Apple iPhone allows a user to install HTML5 apps to their home screen with their own icon. If the application uses HTML5’s offline features, it will load almost as quickly as a native application and runs completely from cache. First screenshot example of saving to home screen from a Google search: http://italkmagazine.com/ho…
Yep, I’ve done that but it won’t operate offline. And it loads in a browser tab, so it doesn’t have equal status to an app when you go to multitask between different apps.
– ICON: BOOKMARK TO ICON. ANDROID, IPHONE, BOTH DO. RESULT IS ICON, LAUNCH LIKE APP- HTML5 CACHE MANIFEST ALLOW SPECIFY ALL CODE TO STORE LOCALLY, LAUNCH LOCALLY. IF WEB APP NOT USE, CODERS LAZY, OR HAVE REASON FOR NOT DO.ME NOT KIDDING ABOUT THIS. ONLY REASON YOU NOT SEE THIS IS MOST CODERS SUCK. IT NOT EVEN HARD,ONLY PART NOT EXIST IS RUN OUTSIDE OF BROWSER. THAT… NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE. LIKE SAY WANT TO RUN PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICH WITHOUT BREAD AND PEANUT BUTTER.
I don’t get the “HTML5 will save us” logic. Everything is moving in the exact opposite direction. Consider the Mac App Store…. companies are actually removing features from their products so that they can be part of the Mac App Store (1password comes to mind, but there are others). OS X is completely open, you can download whatever you want on it, but consumers (and thus developers) are choosing to conform to a more restrictive software for the convenience.I don’t blame them. When switching from one computer to another all I had to do was log into the MAS and click on “Install” to all the apps I wanted to move over. I don’t need to worry about license numbers any longer. Updates happen whether or not the app is running. And I have some assurance that these programs won’t compromise my information. Microsoft is likewise working on an app store. Large companies like the Financial Times have the pull to have HTML5 only solutions, but when you’re a startup, there is going to be only one way into the market. HTML5 isn’t going to save us from the new bosses because consumers are not going to go there.Consumers might choose new app stores (like Amazon for Android), but the gatekeepers are here to stay.
CONVENIENCE ALWAYS MORE POWERFUL THAN CHOICE.
The biggest gatekeeper continues to be content discovery, just as it was a decade ago or more when the mobile internet was just getting started, and it’s still a function largely of the form factor of the device — any power the app stores and carrier placement maintains today is still due to this factor.As phones support HTML5 better and a true “hyperlinked” web becomes readily accessible, the power of gatekeepers will gradually recede, but it will not be overnight.
What advantages will HTML5 offer that current App Stores don’t? There’s no lack of Apps. Capability-wise native apps will always be faster, better, more streamlined into the OS.
I’m not looking to debate HTML5 versus apps, and have dogs in both fights. But the current “open Internet” and “stumble” discovery was clearly enabled by random walk nature of the web. The same experience is inevitably stunted even when using a mobile browser, because the random walk runs into dead ends of sites that don’t work on mobile, or at least on the specific phone you may have — and to top that off, simply typing a web address is tedious even on the smartest of smartphones.Though the lines are blurring, it’s difficult for apps, by their very nature, substitute for this kind of discovery. The web, definitionally, is the ultra open discovery appTo Fred’s initial point, though — the reason that anyone, Apple or otherwise has this “power” is because discovery is cumbersome and the user gains an convenience (or even access) through a curated experience. As an analogy, think of newspapers versus blogs. The Times editorial page is still influential — but a hell of a lot less than it was before the blogosphere. In the same way, when it’s easier to use the phone to get at alternative content — and that simply hasn’t happened yet — then the control of the gatekeepers will diminish.
There is a solution to the gatekeepers out there, but it isn’t getting the attention it deserves. It is the W3C working draft spec of the Contacts API. Every HTML5 developer should be in favor of getting it finished and into every major browser used by early adopters ASAP:http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/Without the contacts API, every app developer is basically hostage to Facebook OAuth, Twitter OAuth, Apple AppStore and Android App Marketplace.IMHO this is more important for web app success than sexier HTML5 features like Web GL that are getting a lot of attention at the moment.The “Boss” controls access to our personal networks. The sooner that access to that data is frictionless and doesn’t require the gatekeepers, the sooner we’ll be independent.
so what is holding it up
just guessing: making sure it’s spec’d right so that users understand what apps have access to their contacts, and having some way of disconnecting them or locking them down.
yes. this is huge.
Note to DISQUS: Needed, the ability to “reply” to more than one person.
Tom: Do you use the @twitter-7759822:disqus method so that each “@” user is also notified of inclusion in a reply? Or did I misunderstand what you mean? Just hoping to help you with a current feature.
Good point, thanks.
Also observe: the powers that be in mobile content distribution are also hell bent on preventing the mobile browser from becoming a go-to for rich experiences which they are more than capable of providing. How many iPhone users know how to add a browser bookmark to the desktop?I believe that Facebook will lead the charge away from the AppStore and into the browser for mobile content discovery. Facebook will remove their native app from the stores and educate users on bookmarking. You can see this shaping up by observing that the Facebook native app is 90% web already. Add a bookmark on your phone desktop to m.facebook.com and see if you can tell the difference.Then we will have yet another new boss as mobile content discovery will be ruled by Facebook. But perhaps it will be a more level playing field at least or a while.
@ccrystle:disqusTo your comment re: Disqus.I would agree that in potential it is the sleeping giant. The connective tissue of the web. With each comment the sinews of that connection get stronger.But the questions is, whether Disqus be the giant that awakes or will the data through an API empower a new generation of implicit heroes that will own discovery for the next phase of the web’s evolution?Or are they one and the same?
The predictability of the gatekeepers is what gets me. Even on the web side with Facebook & LinkedIn’s Open Graph API’s, it’s unclear what is truly permitted versus what isn’t. Also, what each company thinks as their core competency is likely to evolve over time…trouble.One thing I have found on the web side, however, is that competition seems to keep the “gatekeepers” in check. The entrance of Google + is likely to keep Facebook on its toes for at least a short while to come. Instead of having monopoliges on data and API’s, they now have to compete for people to build on their platforms…which is good for the rest of us.
This tension will only increase. What will “break the camel’s back”?
Gatekeepers generally there to protect their turf and more importantly hold onto their jobs and justify their existence..Most enterprises have gatekeepers. The Googles of the world started out breaking down those barriers dealing directly with consumers, but eventually when they grow up they also tend to become gatekeepers themselves.I believe it maybe the human tendency for many to be that way…
It is very interesting. The carriers had all the power once, and now then the handset makers/platform providers.
The fact that the Bing app consumed huge amounts of memory in the mobile device.
The fact that the Bing app consumed huge amounts of memory in the mobile device.
Too free an environment can cause extreme malware problems such as those reported about Android. I believe that the optimal solution is that the GW only checks for security and privacy controls while allowing the user to override the settings.
Access to customers has been muddied with Apple mixing of distribution and marketing all-in-on in their App store. In reality they served distribution well, but not marketing. App stores are so crowded and poorly searchable that the marketing effect of being there is almost zero.
By letting HTML5 apps add an installapp tag that tells the browser to allow installation of the app onto the device, add an icon to the home screen, etc.Then you’ve at least got two competing ways to get apps on any mainstream device.I think Apple would be hard pressed to ignore this.
That was reported on windows too, meanwhile windows got very big, and started a whole industry of protecting computers from malware.
NORMAL HUMAN CARE ABOUT “WORKS” AND “SAFE” NOT “OPEN.” DEV NO GROK BE ALWAYS DISAPPOINTED.
In the long run though it ruined their reputation.
And look at how Microsoft is perceived today. The slowly engendered ill will and are now facing shrinking installs.
REPLACE WORD “APP” WITH “VIRUS” AND REASON IT NOT HAPPEN YET PRETTY CLEAR.
No different from running the same code in the browser…
BROWSER ON MOBILE HAVE LIMITED ACCESS TO OS COMPARED TO DESKTOP.THIS PROTECT FROM VIRUS.ALSO LIMIT POWER OF WEB APP.
True but having that option will allow the few exceptions that a person wants to take. kinda like the debate on the legalization of cannabis.