Right now, so many major players in the web browsing space have turned to the WebKit project for its rendering needs—
- Apple: Safari
- Google: Chrome
- Nokia: Symbian web browser for S60
- Google: Android web browser
- Research In Motion: BlackBerry web browser
- and more
—that one has to wonder if web browsers should just stop running on their own and agree to just merge, possibly under WebKit, since it seems to be so popular across the board. To be clear, if Mozilla’s Gecko renderer had the same track record, I’d say the same thing.
It’s less a matter of killing healthy competition and innovation among vendors, more about eliminating the headache of rendering differences. People can probably file away all the browser bugs and inconsistencies across browsers and their various versions in a full encyclopedia set. (IE6 would take up at least a couple of volumes.) This tedious aspect of front-end development could be greatly reduced if all these browsers adopted the same rendering kit. Then the vendors can focus on improving and innovating in other aspects, like what Google did with its JavaScript V8 engine.
Mozilla can enjoy more time expanding its already large and loyal userbase, working on Labs products like Bespin and Weave, pushing for the WOFF web font format, and so on.
One can argue that if we should be able to choose browsers, then the same can be said for underlying rendering engines, and accept the differences as a a consequence of the freedom to choose. But does a consumer of the Web need to choose which rendering engine he prefers? Or are the differences something we can finally do without?
I, for one, would be thrilled if we didn’t have to worry whether websites looked the same in every browser, and just focus on making websites look and behave the best they can. And I’m pretty sure ordinary users don’t even think about rendering differences.
As much as I wish we’d move on and get Apple off our radar, its decisions have a rippling effect in the industry and the future of various technologies. The next issue on the list? The Web versus App debate. This can be framed more specifically as a Mobile Web vs. Objective-C Web debate in the context of Apple’s mobile landscape, but as early discussions arise, it’s transforming into an interoperability vs. superior user experience debate. Cameron Moll, author of Mobile Web Design, writes:
At one point in time, J2ME (now Java ME) and WAP were the starting points for a discussion on mobile strategy and the web. Then, for a brief period of time, you talked about HTML/CSS. Now, for a growing majority of mobile strategies that don’t require a global presence on widely varying devices, the discussion begins with iPhone. Smart client is now iPhone app, and in many cases, the app is primary to the experience, not secondary to the browser. And iPad app may soon replace iPhone app as the starting point.
Frankly, as the adoption rate of iPhone increases and if iPad follows suit, it will become increasingly difficult to argue in favor of a starting point other than iPhone OS. The NPR iPad app, for one, provides a much more pleasant user experience than NPR.org.
Peter-Paul Koch steps in and plants himself firmly on the interoperability front, maintaining allegiance to the Web:
This is a total no-brainer when we’re talking about games and other entertainment apps. When it comes to complex, graphic games, vendors will opt for superior UX, and once you’ve done that, starting on iPhone OS makes excellent sense.
But if you build an integrated social media client, is superior UX still so important that you can afford to ignore non-iPhones? I don’t think so. I think creators of such apps would do better to create one in web standards so that it runs on all (well, many) devices. There’s stiff competition out there, and the wider your reach, the better chance you have of prevailing.
Meanwhile, Faruk Ates goes the complete opposite: rooting for UX, lamenting the existence of multiple browsers, and emphasizing the need to make a buck. The debate expands further and we see clashing ideologies of democracy vs. walled gardens, free vs. paid business models, and so on. All these further reinforce how Apple’s philosophies go against those of the Web.
With all its new moves, Apple has been targeting all sorts of corporate entities for its own gain: Adobe, Google, the whole porn industry…but now is it also hurting developers? consumers? the Web? itself?
Hostility towards competitors is, I suppose, all part of the game. But this action is also hugely hostile towards developers themselves. The banned development environments offer things that Apple’s Xcode doesn’t. Sometimes it’s just a different choice of language, one that a particular deveoper might feel more comfortable in. But often the advantage is simplification—the use of higher-level programming languages (like Lua, or JavaScript, or C#) and frameworks that take out a lot of the grunt-work of software development (like writing a 3D engine). In turn, developers get quicker development cycles, easier development, fewer bugs, and overall, superior applications. Banning these tools doesn’t just hurt competitors. It hurts developers on Apple’s platform, and in turn hurts the platform itself.
Apple’s done a lot of things to stir the pot, and while such stringent practices have been known to yield revolutionary results, its actions continue to seem awfully ruthless. Choosing a more favorable approach to mobile development could very well be tainted by the company’s values.
In celebration of the iPad retail launch, Apple has created a gallery of iPad-ready websites that are said to embrace “the latest web standards—including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript”. That is, no Flash. You can even add your site to the gallery (scroll to the bottom).
Is Apple really opening up?
Let’s get the snark out of the way: a gallery, really? How novel. Right now there’s a vertical list (no Cover Flow?) of 20 top-tier websites. Will Apple really painstakingly update this list and add every possible HTML5/CSS3/JS-ready site submitted?
It’s a rare thing for Apple to lead a user-generated campaign like this but its best intentions are a thin veil over their real agenda—eliminating the competition and expanding further in the multimedia business. Does it really care about anything other than the big fish? What are the odds that the most humble of websites will even get into the gallery? Apple markets its products by partnering with the largest corporations that fit into its plans; I can’t imagine caring for the little guy in all of this.
This isn’t even in the same league as the iTunes app store—whose contents number in the hundreds of thousands—but could easily apply the profit-based and biased policies anyway. Not what I would call open or little guy friendly.
Is Apple a true web standards crusader?
Speaking of the app store: you can also develop specifically for the iPhone/iPod/iPad family using the SDK, but those apps don’t work in other devices. The mobile web is booming because of both the “web standards way” and the “mobile app” way, but how are device-specific apps any better than Flash apps (which happen to be cross-platform outside of Apple’s products)? Flipping off Flash when HTML5 and CSS3 aren’t ready isn’t a very responsible thing to do.
If Apple really wants to promote web standards, it should be doing a lot more with its resources to convert and educate people. The gallery is one thing, this documentation is another good step, but where are the resources for developing in HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript? Partnerships with web standards groups like WaSP? Zeldman or one of the Super Friends speaking at the keynote?
If Apple really wants to promote web standards, see how it practically equates HTML5 with Flash-free media and nothing more. No oohs and ahs over CSS3′s text shadows and rounded corners or HTML5′s geolocation and <canvas>. This is the perfect opportunity to introduce the mainstream crowd to the wonders of these new technologies, yet all it’s pushing is anti-Flash propaganda.
One more thing…
Dear Apple, you’ve done a lot of groundbreaking things, but if you’re going to use web standards as a selling point for your most adjective-ridden product ever, you can do a hell of a lot better than an an anti-Flash gallery.
I find it very intriguing that Microsoft chose to redesign its new Windows Phone 7 Series interface this way:
The design and layout of 7 Series’ UI (internally called Metro) is really quite original, utilizing what one of the designers (Albert Shum, formerly of Nike) calls an “authentically digital” and “chromeless” experience. What does that mean? Well we can tell you what it doesn’t mean — no shaded icons, no faux 3D or drop shadows, no busy backgrounds (no backgrounds at all), and very little visual flair besides clean typography and transition animations. The whole look is strangely reminiscent of a terminal display (maybe Microsoft is recalling its DOS roots here) — almost Tron-like in its primary color simplicity. To us, it’s rather exciting. This OS looks nothing like anything else on the market, and we think that’s to its advantage. Admittedly, we could stand for a little more information available within single views, and we have yet to see how the phone will handle things like notifications, but the design of the interface is definitely in a class of its own.
Curveball thrown. While the look has been in Zunes for sometime now, the real challenge lies in whether this will take off for mobile phones. I have to commend their bravery for taking this step, going the complete opposite of Apple’s love for rounded corners, gradients, and shadows. It also looks open and airy compared to all the boxes (no matter how rounded) on the iPhone.
It definitely changes the game a bit, and like several others I’m starting to feel like the Apple interface looks dated next to this one. Pretty big deal if you ask me.
This move could backfire. People tend to shy away from minimalism, not to mention it could actually be underdesigned, lacking in visual cues and icons. It falls short of the unified look Apple has built over the years, and I doubt it could start a UI revolution the way OS X did. Would Microsoft even use this for its desktop OS?
We’ll also have to find how it really measures up in real-world testing because the interface alone won’t determine success, but also performance and features (IE and Bing instead of Safari/Mozilla and Google? What apps will it have?). Still, bold is better than half-baked, and in the mobile space this look definitely sets them apart.
*/
