I do not believe this debate will ever be fully resolved one way or the other. That is, there will always be things Web sites/apps are better for: Delivering free-form, multimedia information, especially when frequently updated. Or for relatively simple apps that benefit from pervasive access.
There are also things that OS-specific apps are likely to be better at for many years to come: Apps that operate in the background without using a lot of battery power, and interactive apps that manipulate and organize information and benefit from the richest and most responsive user experience that is integrated with OS features for information and device resource sharing.
OS innovation hasn't stopped. App development for iOS, Android, and Windows 8 hasn't even fully probed what those OSs can do for app developers in creating apps that work together. And the OS developers have not stopped improving their app APIs. They all have different approaches to interaction and application architecture, especially inter-app communication and cooperation.
So not only will we see a continuation of platform-specific apps, we will see a lot of innovation in what those apps can do on different platforms, and a richer expression of the differences between platforms.
"Write-once run everywhere" has zero value to the end user. They want the best Facebook/g+/Twitter/whatever experience possible on the platform they use.
> "Write-once run everywhere" has zero value to the end user. They want the best Facebook/g+/Twitter/whatever experience possible on the platform they use.
Exactly, and if Mr Enduser X can get it on his weird platform because it runs HTML, that's a massive piece of value to him.
Also, while he wants a good experience, he wants it to be free too and the cost in building and maintaining multiple codebases for client libraries would certainly get passed on to him one way or another.
That argument is a little circular. If a platform has significant market share, apps get ported to that platform. If not, it doesn't matter.
Before there were Web apps, all software makers wrote apps for multiple platforms. Porting to a platform has a cost, but, for a successful software company, not a relatively large cost. Even unprofitable platforms are likely to be supported by some software makers as a way of erecting barriers to entry, or to speculate on the future success of that platform.
Users will expect all the features of their platform to be well-supported in their apps.
There are also things that OS-specific apps are likely to be better at for many years to come: Apps that operate in the background without using a lot of battery power, and interactive apps that manipulate and organize information and benefit from the richest and most responsive user experience that is integrated with OS features for information and device resource sharing.
OS innovation hasn't stopped. App development for iOS, Android, and Windows 8 hasn't even fully probed what those OSs can do for app developers in creating apps that work together. And the OS developers have not stopped improving their app APIs. They all have different approaches to interaction and application architecture, especially inter-app communication and cooperation.
So not only will we see a continuation of platform-specific apps, we will see a lot of innovation in what those apps can do on different platforms, and a richer expression of the differences between platforms.
"Write-once run everywhere" has zero value to the end user. They want the best Facebook/g+/Twitter/whatever experience possible on the platform they use.