iPhone snobbery in Corporate world

Atomic Pineapple · 25-01-2012 2:28pm

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

But they're just so dull....................:p

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

The FT is a website basically, so that works for HTML. Also they have a brand. So getting featured in the store was not a big deal. Also they wanted to avoid the Apple subs theft.

Professey Chin · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

draffodx wrote: »

But they're just so dull....................:p

But look at my background! :pac:

mickoneill30 · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

Buy an iPhone for the odd app that isn't available for Android????? So you have two phones????

What a useless solution.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:30pm

The buy an iPhone posts are not helpful. Otherwise the discussion is good.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 2:40pm

Draupnir wrote: »

FT chose HTML5 because they don't want to share any revenue or content with Apple, not because HTML5 has any natural advantage as a technology.

Actually it has a few 'technological' advantages; principally it is cheaper to develop and manage.

Let's be honest; even in the area of 'branded' apps, there are many examples that would work as well, if not better, as HTML5 sites. In many cases, the fad to have 'an app' has overtaken reasoned analysis of the market that such apps are supposedly serving and in many cases users actually prefer to go to a site, rather than download an app.

jeromeof wrote: »

This is not true, iTunes has a great prepaid market with iTunes cards.

I've actually no idea how this is supposed to invalidate my point.

This is actually not true either, since we are talking developer SDK's. Android 1.0 was released in Nov 2007 Read announcement here while the IOS SDK was not released until Mar 2008, see Engadget at SDK event.

I was talking about the actual devices. Who cares about the SDK's - indeed, no one did.

I don't think this is the case yet either, a huge number of very limited Android phones have flooded the market, they have poor screen resolutions (320x240) (Cheap Samsung Mini/Y etc, ZTE Racer), are using old ROM's e.g. 1.6 (Experia X8) and are typically very slow and have almost no space for Apps (or their data). While some Apps will scale and handle these limitations, lots still have problems and because these handsets are so popular if you were targeting Android you have to built to a very low common denominator to cover as much of the market as possible. The other alternative for developers is to develop 2 version of your Android app (e.g. like Dolphin with a HD version for the higher end Android phones).

Poor screen resolutions, etc actually make little difference in most cases. Relative layouts and fonts, and a more intelligent approach to graphical assets means that you can write many apps that cover the vast majority of devices, without resorting to multiple versions.

Of course, this approach will not cover all apps, but then again I never said it would.

Also, I wouldn't count Microsoft out of yet, Windows 8 is very nice and could assist greatly into the popularity of their mobile platform.

I'd agree. Not hugely impressed by their performance so far, but I'd not rule them out either.

muckwarrior · 25-01-2012 2:43pm

Zaph wrote: »

I was speaking to someone recently who's developing an iOS app for a major site. He told me that once it's developed the Android app will be much quicker and easier to develop because of the work that will already have been done on the Apple api. Maybe this is true of all apps?

This is generally true for a couple of reasons.

Many non trivial apps will require a framework to be developed around them e.g. server side components, databases, APIs etc. Once these have been developed for the first app, subsequent platform ports can also use them.

Clients generally don't know exactly what they want and sometimes they'll change their mind on the specification half way through. This can require development work to be scrapped and re-done. If you're developing 2 or 3 apps in parallel then you waste 2 or 3 times the amount of time than if you only did 1 first. When the app has been completed and released then you can start working on porting it to other platforms without worrying about the spec changing.

So in short there are some very good reasons for building an app for one platform first. Unfortunately, in Ireland at least, iOS is still the leading platform in terms of app downloads so companies are still prioritising it when it comes to releasing an app. They are slowly catching on, but it's still quite shocking how many companies don't even have an Android phone to test a build when you send it to them.

Edit: Only read page 2 when I wrote this, didn't notice the other 4 pages in between

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 2:43pm

johnjack1067 wrote: »

Just because you cant afford an iPhone .

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

Moronic comments that add nothing to the discussion other than the conviction that those making such comments should not be encouraged to ever breed are not welcome. Any further comments of this nature and I will take action against the authors.

As for the rest of you, don't feed the trolls.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it has a few 'technological' advantages; principally it is cheaper to develop and manage.

The "easier" to develop is a value judgement, since fans of native ( like myself) would say the same. I would definitely suggest HTML5 for text layout intensive apps, or indeed for forums - the boards mobile site is good.

However, what most people would lose out on:

1) Native UI, and native UI look and feel. FT clearly doesnt have this, it doesnt need it because it has a brand.
2) App store featuring. The best bet for normal companies to go large.
3) Background tasks - at least in iOS. I am not sure if HTML 5 apps work in
4) Push notifications, in-app purchases etc. And more. Thats why they have a
5) Lower level access to the much more comprehensive API ( in C often) available on the device.

And more

you can put HTML in a native shell, in which case you could use native.

jeromeof · 25-01-2012 2:57pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've actually no idea how this is supposed to invalidate my point.

You talked about iTunes advantage being credit cards registered, I believe this is a much worse issue for Android. The fact you have to have a credit card to buy an App.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was talking about the actual devices. Who cares about the SDK's - indeed, no one did.

SDK's are what developers use and if anyone had cared then Android had a way for developers to build applications before the iPhone. Obviously no one cared. The point is the SDK's was there and therefore its not true to say that IPhone development started before Android.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Poor screen resolutions, etc actually make little difference in most cases. Relative layouts and fonts, and a more intelligent approach to graphical assets means that you can write many apps that cover the vast majority of devices, without resorting to multiple versions.

It really depends on what the is trying to do and paid App mostly have to do something special for people to actual pay for them, so for example, not having an auto-focus camera can be a problem for some Apps or a low res screen for other apps. It's not that I disagree, its that you can be developer a "crappy" app for all android handsets (and the marketplace is full of them) but if you want to do something special with your app, not having a "standard" set of capabilities leads to problems, this has always been a problem and is still a problem now because of these cheap handsets. Be it limitations with your app on particular handsets or just the very effort of trying to have as many different handsets on hand to test. Its probably a better strategy for a paid App to just focus on the high end (SGII, Google Nexus) but then you miss out on a huge market.

Draupnir · 25-01-2012 3:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let's be honest; even in the area of 'branded' apps, there are many examples that would work as well, if not better, as HTML5 sites.

That is absolutely true, there is a large amount of native apps across all platforms that have no business being native apps and are basically web sites wrapped up.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 3:19pm

Yahew wrote: »

The "easier" to develop is a value judgement, since fans of native ( like myself) would say the same.

I am speaking from a commercial point of view. That you're a fan of native is your business, but from a commercial viewpoint, you're just a resource.

TBH, I think you're missing my point. If you have a brand, when does it make sense to let people interact with you via your Web site and when does it make sense to let people interact with you via a desktop application they have to download and install on their PC?

Many apps out there are frankly overkill.

you can put HTML in a native shell, in which case you could use native.

The Qt approach to Nokia WRT.

jeromeof wrote: »

You talked about iTunes advantage being credit cards registered, I believe this is a much worse issue for Android. The fact you have to have a credit card to buy an App.

I said that iTunes is a far more mature marketplace - just because I didn't list everything under the sun hardly makes it incorrect. In reality where I was incorrect was that credit card registration is actually not enforced on iTunes.

SDK's are what developers use and if anyone had cared then Android had a way for developers to build applications before the iPhone. Obviously no one cared. The point is the SDK's was there and therefore its not true to say that IPhone development started before Android.

You are not exactly correct as the Android SDK released in November 2007 was only a preview release - there wasn't a lot you could do with it, AFAIR. The actual Android 0.9 SDK (beta) was released in August 2008 - after the first iOS SDK release in March of that year.

It really depends on what the is trying to do and paid App mostly have to do something special for people to actual pay for them, so for example, not having an auto-focus camera can be a problem for some Apps or a low res screen for other apps. It's not that I disagree, its that you can be developer a "crappy" app for all android handsets (and the marketplace is full of them) but if you want to do something special with your app, not having a "standard" set of capabilities leads to problems, this has always been a problem and is still a problem now because of these cheap handsets. Be it limitations with your app on particular handsets or just the very effort of trying to have as many different handsets on hand to test. Its probably a better strategy for a paid App to just focus on the high end (SGII, Google Nexus) but then you miss out on a huge market.

So, we've moved away from screen resolution issues and are focusing on specific device capabilities...

Certainly in that context you're correct, but most apps don't use particularly specific device capabilities.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 3:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, we've moved away from screen resolution issues and are focusing on specific device capabilities...

Certainly in that context you're correct, but most apps don't use particularly specific device capabilities.

They do, all the time, in fact.

HTML is just a layout language. JS is just a script. Unless the clients are technically able to understand you will spend your entire time with HTML apps explaining why you cant do a) and b) looks awful and c) stutters and is too slow.

Facebook, Twitter etc. Apps, not web apps.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 4:02pm

Yahew wrote: »

They do, all the time, in fact.

I was talking about the Android SDK and fragmentation - I've no idea why you've decided to segway into HTML5.

JS is just a script.

And? That's it's a script - code interpreted at runtime, rather than compiled into native bytecode - means what exactly? That it won't be super fast? Might not really need to be. That it can't access device specific API's? Again, might not need to, and if it does even scripts can do this if the device API is exposed - look at Nokia WRT, for example.

Unless the clients are technically able to understand you will spend your entire time with HTML apps explaining why you cant do a) and b) looks awful and c) stutters and is too slow.

That's what having a competent analyst who can explain this to them and free up the development resources to do their jobs is for.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 4:09pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was talking about the Android SDK and fragmentation - I've no idea why you've decided to segway into HTML5.

That is actually how the conversation was going.

And? That's it's a script - code interpreted at runtime, rather than compiled into native bytecode - means what exactly? That it won't be super fast? Might not really need to be. That it can't access device specific API's? Again, might not need to, and if it does even scripts can do this if the device API is exposed - look at Nokia WRT, for example.

You might think the first point makes sense, but let me repeat once again. My latest consolation is to cost the re-write of an app, an app which needs no device interaction at all, from html to native.

That's what having a competent analyst who can explain this to them and free up the development resources to do their jobs is for.

Very hard to do when clients are interested in "look and feel" and smoothness, and have existing app which is not up to scratch. I have recommended HTML ( internally to a native shell), for a magazine type layout.

Twitter, and Facebook - web sites both - have native apps. Thats telling. If you go to a Brand and give them something that looks crap, thats half the battle lost. This is not liked by technical guys, but it is the fact of the matter.

The Corinthian · 26-01-2012 12:49pm

Yahew wrote: »

That is actually how the conversation was going.

It's still pulling what I said completely out of both context and even subject.

You might think the first point makes sense, but let me repeat once again. My latest consolation is to cost the re-write of an app, an app which needs no device interaction at all, from html to native.

I cannot comment on your projects as I don't know the requirements or the personalties involved to make any kind of judgement. A native app may be required for reasons that are not immediately apparent to anyone who's not in marketing (having an app 'installed' rather than a site 'bookmarked' makes all the difference for some). Or it could be a decision based upon personal preference, fashion, incompetence, client politics or supplier up-selling. Or something different altogether.

Very hard to do when clients are interested in "look and feel" and smoothness, and have existing app which is not up to scratch. I have recommended HTML ( internally to a native shell), for a magazine type layout.

I never suggested it is easy.

Twitter, and Facebook - web sites both - have native apps. Thats telling. If you go to a Brand and give them something that looks crap, thats half the battle lost. This is not liked by technical guys, but it is the fact of the matter.

Twitter and, especially, Facebook use native apps because they have requirements that cannot be met using a mobile Web site - simple as that. On Symbian, on the other hand, Facebook uses a HTML5 client (WRT), because there it can meet those requirements.

It's not about using a native app or not. Or using a multi-platform framework or not. It's about meeting requirements within budget and time in as optimum fashion as is possible.

srsly78 · 26-01-2012 3:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

We used to make similar jokes about some of the start-ups we were developing for back around 1999. Word to the wise; what followed wasn't pretty.

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

As for the guys saying html5 is going nowhere: Things change in the software industry. Change with them or get left behind.

edit: Yahew: OpenGL development is more "native" than iphone animation apis. Angry birds and other games etc use OpenGL. Also HTML5 supports OpenGL. It's APPLE that is at the forefront pushing this technology (because they hate flash).

The Corinthian · 26-01-2012 5:17pm

srsly78 wrote: »

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

Indeed. We're all handmaidens to the whores of Mammon in the end; we can advise against stupid ideas, attempt to convince them to 'amend' them so that at least they don't end up taking a bath on them, but ultimately it's a fool and his money...

Example: I did a strategy-analysis gig a year ago with a start-up who had an idea which they wanted to execute in a manner that made no sense commercially. Additionally, they underestimated the necessary IT budget (and didn't even try to estimate the marketing one). I told them all this at the first meeting.

Needless to say the business model changed dramatically in the course of the following few months, but even so I think these guys are ultimately doomed to failure. Still, I got them to the point where they were able to raise a nice chunk of VC which was what they paid me for.

Yahew · 26-01-2012 5:40pm

srsly78 wrote: »

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

As for the guys saying html5 is going nowhere: Things change in the software industry. Change with them or get left behind.

edit: Yahew: OpenGL development is more "native" than iphone animation apis. Angry birds and other games etc use OpenGL. Also HTML5 supports OpenGL. It's APPLE that is at the forefront pushing this technology (because they hate flash).

Wrong again. I wont rehash the HTML5 debate, we've heard that since Netscape was going to hollow out Windows and "be" the OS. The movement is obviously the other way. Ask Instagram. Basically an upload service and it doesnt even have a website, never mind a web app.

All objective C is compiled natively, as is any C or C++ you would compile on the iPhone. Objective C is C, in fact C. They all run in compiled down byte code on the processor.

OPenGL runs on the GPU, if the GPU can handle it. Core animation can also be pushed to the GPU, if the GPU handles it. The iPhone can handle it.

srsly78 · 26-01-2012 7:02pm

The core animation stuff is written using OpenGL is the point that you are oblivious to.

In the future people will make super-fun-happy frameworks in html5 for guys like you. No big deal.

Yahew · 26-01-2012 8:21pm

srsly78 wrote: »

The core animation stuff is written using OpenGL is the point that you are oblivious to.

Lol, that was obviously the point you were oblivious to.

srsly78 wrote: »

OpenGL development is more "native" than iphone animation apis.

It was you who was disputing that Core Animation was as "native" as OpenGL- a particularly ridiculous term since both are native ( and both are accelerated). I have known that Core Animation uses OpenGL for years, prior to the iPhone.

In the future people will make super-fun-happy frameworks in html5 for guys like you. No big deal.

There is no way an interpreted lanugage is going to write to the GPU. And why would anybody use such a language when a more power derivative of C is available. The reason to use Objective C is not just fun, but power. There is plenty of C code ( and often C++) in code I write for the iPhone, as there was when I worked on low level drivers for the Mac back in the day. When needed.

Do you really work in this industry?

srsly78 · 26-01-2012 9:03pm

I'm (amongst other things) a professional graphics developer. I have done lots of work writing frameworks for other people to use, on both mobile and desktop.

"Interpreted languages": you mean VM languages I assume. This is what android and WP7 use, and they are plenty fast due to modern advances in JIT compilers (the arm chipsets used actually have hardware acceleration for this). The real work in high performance graphics is being done on the gpu anyway, so the tiny speed penalty for VM languages has no impact.

Playing the "omg c++ is teh best" card is comedy gold btw

I used to think like that too years ago.

bd250110 · 30-01-2012 12:06am

Im not sure about the coding and wiring of App's, but I think the new Ulster Bank app thread does add some weight to the argument that developing for android is more complicated than other platforms. Bear in mind that the UB app is from one of the largest banking groups in the world and the iOS app has been around for a while, in various forms. Posters with various hardware/software configurations have incompatibility issues, phones like the SGS II with certain ROM's, SGN with ICS. The thing not to loose sight of is that 90-99% of the market just do not understand the technology in their hands. All they want is for it to "work". If a company/developer has to spend a large amount of time supporting customers, or addressing inaccurate negative feedback on the Market this affects the company as a whole and poor customer experience could be damaging to the brand, even if neither the App, nor the developer/commissioning company are wrong.

There is an argument for a mobile web version of the website, but that does not seem to be the current trend. I strongly believe that mobile platforms live and die by the ecosystem, look no further than the kindle Fire. It already has something like 36% of all android tablet internet usage, in a matter of weeks.

srsly78 · 30-01-2012 11:05am

bd250110 wrote: »

Posters with various hardware/software configurations have incompatibility issues, phones like the SGS II with certain ROM's, SGN with ICS.

Please stop being vague and post the actual compatibility problem you are alluding to (hint there is none). Maybe with some ancient android, just like with an ancient iphone your stuff won't work.

Also, your "android internet usage" figures are nonsense as already debunked in this thread. Can't reliably tell them apart coz of user agent. None of those studies are accurate.

bd250110 · 30-01-2012 4:23pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Please stop being vague and post the actual compatibility problem you are alluding to (hint there is none). Maybe with some ancient android, just like with an ancient iphone your stuff won't work.

Also, your "android internet usage" figures are nonsense as already debunked in this thread. Can't reliably tell them apart coz of user agent. None of those studies are accurate.

It is mainly ICS ROM's that are causing issues. So far the Sensation the SGS II and the Galaxy nexus are the specifically named phones with compatibility messages. You can not deny that there are compatibility issues. Or are these users making it up?

The general population just don't care WHY this happens and may write off the app, company or OS as "crap" or "useless" when that really is not the case. Some posters deny any issues with compatibility, Im just pointing out that even relatively simple apps, with no fancy 3D or anything like that seem to be having issues, depending on hardware/software configurations.

srsly78 · 30-01-2012 4:29pm

ICS isn't officially out for the SGS2. There are some unstable leaked versions around.

Would you really install a known leaked unstable rom, and then turn around and complain about stability?

Not sure for Sensation but same story I would bet. Galaxy Nexus is brand-new and had a few bugs at launch, no big shock.

Please don't make assertions about this unless you have actually tried it (development). There is so much bull**** information around on this subject, it's almost as if people are deliberately spreading misinformation.

iPhone snobbery in Corporate world

Comments