LONDON — Did native apps kill the Web? Maybe, maybe not. At the Future of Web Apps conference, an interesting theme that arose was how to rescue the Web or debating if it’s even worth saving at all. As our world goes globally mobile, do we care about the Web anymore? Or do we just incessantly want an app for that? This piece reflects on the ongoing battle of the Web versus native apps, but doesn’t necessarily call a winner—we’ll let you decide that one.
There’s no doubt that the iPhone and the Android have permanently changed the way we process information, which was only last dramatically changed a mere 20 years ago. Not only do we want to connect with anyone, anywhere, we want to do it from anywhere, with the same experience, regardless of the device we use to do it. But, while we certainly demand it, that doesn’t mean it’s the way it is and it may never be.
Where the Web went wrong
They say “Imitation is the best form of flattery.” In a twist over the last years, the Web is working hard to dress and act like its much younger native app sibling, but is that just making the Web seem old and awkward?
Google Nordic’s Robert Nyman began his keynote with what the present state of the Web looks like: “The web as it is today is a freak show.” Because it is working too hard to be something it’s not, the Web looks simply gawky next to its native app friends.
“I think there’s a risk if we see it as emulating. If you just sort of start to emulate the main features on each platform, it’s just going to throw things first,” Nyman said. However he doesn’t think all imitation is necessarily bad, if it’s done with strategy in mind. “It’s more about emulating the key features that make things interesting for the users and developers.” The crucial word is “key features” or rather “key benefits,” not just looking to copy-paste the entire app experience.
Mobile platform strategist Peter-Paul Koch kicked off his contentious FOWA talk by taking his criticism of the current state of the Web significantly further with these four downfalls:
- Web developers want to emulate native apps. He believes this is impossible, arguing that by continuing to try to fit this square Web peg into the round mobile hole, the Web gets further behind by “destroying usability” with a product that is “buggy” and “broken.”
- This causes browsers to feature-load. The Web is adding feature after feature to compete with the native app, but at least Koch would argue that it can never catch up. “It’s impossible for the Web to ever be as good as native,” he said, particularly as new features aren’t supported in all browsers.
- We get more and more tools, which he says is more of a problem than not.
- People who are new to the web think of the Web as just one platform, when it’s really a multitude.
How does this man known as “PPK” say we fight this? I’d like to summarize it into the first rule of journalism: KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. It’s not “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” It’s all about going back to the basics of simplicity and working for perfection from the code up and stopping to be an app-wannabe.
Or are apps just dreaming of being the next Web?
Nyman worries that many businesses “want to build loyalty and long-term investment in an app—and they feel like they really can’t offer that on the web.” However he cited statistics which seem to negate this common belief that causes businesses to rush to create an app: Facebook has a billion users a day on Facebook.com, while there are a mere 844 million daily users via mobile. Certainly the app is catching up, but it hasn’t outpaced the Web just yet.
In fact, Google’s developer advocate, Paul Kinlan has said that “Each app wants to be ‘the next browser,” meaning many are building mega apps or meta-platforms that provide all the different services to their users. Of course that also means our phones or “phablets” will get bigger and bigger with more and more memory, some already costing more than an actual computer. But that doesn’t mean the apps are sufficient.
“One of the things that people love with apps is that you install an app and it lives on your home screen and you can take it into life on a home screen,” said Opera’s Bruce Lawson. In fact, he remarked that “Actually, for the simplest type of app, installing is really bookmarking what the user cares about.” For many industries, the app isn’t that important, but it may seem that way when you can’t always just click to get going from your mobile browser.
In fact, the app attack can be downright annoying. There’s a huge trend in app install interstitials popping up, begging us to download that native app, constantly annoying those of us who don’t like to Download All. This has been a way that the Web has tried to dance around being mobile friendly while really driving their app downloads, but Google blanches at that, officially giving search preference to websites that are responsive to different screens and actually mobile-friendly.
Nyman cited a survey Google did, asking people what they wanted in an app. It seemed clear that Facebook really “gets” it because folks are most commonly looking for apps that offer instant messaging app, photos and messages, followed by group chat and video chat. So for many of us, we really don’t need a constant plea for us to download that app as we still look to use old-school browsers.
Plus, while an app may be easier for the end user, it’s expensive. Jason Summerfield of Human Service Solutions warns: “What you want to avoid at all costs is the needless and expensive exercise of building an app to do something basic that can be achieved with a mobile website.”
What if we all just got along?
Lawson explained how native apps are faster to market “because you just need someone to implement it,” while many websites struggle to work on even a couple of browsers. He said native apps gain this advantage because browsers are discouraging competition which in turn discourages innovation. This was a rather pointed comment toward lockdown browsers, apps and phones, like those of Apple.
But maybe not for long. Recently, there have been a couple of optimistic meetings where Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox and Edge (the browser formerly known as Internet Explorer) have come together in an effort to create some sort of standard view across all five browsers. They’re naming themselves after the man best known for his illusions and clarity: Houdini. It’s still really early on and, as Lawson said, “We’re still thinking about what we want to put in the specs,” but this meeting of the minds behind our browsers could win back the Web.
The focus, as it well should be, is first and foremost on making the lives of developers easier. Lawson continued that, “We need to enable developers to specify and build the things you need to build because your clients specify them,” not because a certain browser can handle them.
Nyman says that if the web is going to win the longevity race, we need to build in such a way “where stuff being built will still work ten years down the line.” He argues this is going back to the wonder of the URL, which he says makes sharing things online easy and accessible across all platforms.
But what do you think? Tweet your victor to @Tefdigital!
