Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way.<p>Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads.<p>That's it. Everything else falls from that.<p>Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.
<i>Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now.</i><p>Yes, but for some reason I don't interpret that as an advantage for Apple. There will always be more ways to access a web page or web app, than devices/form factors that Apple will produce.
having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad.<p>edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group:<p>===<p>I wrote this a few weeks ago, seems relevant as the mobile space heats up with WWDC announcements.<p><a href="http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48" rel="nofollow">http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48</a><p>bottom line: don't forget about international travelers, spartan environments, and that whole, whacky "offline" idea. You want to be relevant 50 years from now on Mars, where the light speed round-trip to earth takes minutes, offline use remains fundamental.
So, if the next fight will be apps vs web (or screen vs browser), what does this mean for us hackers? And what about Facebook?<p>Already we create a web app, a mobile version, an API, a Chrome extension, a Firefox extension, a Facebook app, not to mention mobile and tablet apps for anywhere between 1 and 6 platforms.<p>Isn't this all getting particularly spaghetti-like? Weren't we supposed to have platform convergence, not platform <i>divergence</i>? There's a good opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms, and methodologies that maximise DRY while playing to each platform's strengths.
<i>Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices. Apple is as committed to native apps — on the desktop, tablet, and handheld — as it has ever been.<p>Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen.</i><p>I don't see this conclusion following from his premise. Perhaps there was more in the keynote that he didn't include.<p>Or maybe I am unimaginative and think installing native apps on all of the devices I use regardless of who owns them, or where they are located, or where my discs are is harder than installing a browser based web app or using an HTML5 website.
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen."<p>So by extension Google's applications are more cross platform, and Apple's aren't?
native vs web is a false choice: it's not like one wins and the other loses. they're both better in different ways. do native for some things where it's a net win, and do web for others where web is a net win. And in terms of capabilities, the line is blurring further, esp from the web side.
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen."<p>I don't think it's going to matter. Google is putting a lot of work into 'promoting' the browser frame to the whole screen.
<p><pre><code> > Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen.
</code></pre>
No, Apple's frame is Apple's screen. That makes a huge difference.
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now."<p>So... what happens when you maximize the browser window?<p>The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants to sell you their custom hardware.<p>"But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices."<p>Other than that Apple wants to sell you hardware, there are only technical differences between those two things.
I don't think Apple is about native so much as Apple is about making the best integrated services for devices and selling those devices. Apple isn't native-oriented so much as device oriented. It's just that native apps fill a large and indispensable niche right now.
This feels wrong. Why wouldn't you want to have to have your programs and data stored locally (with eventually a cloud backup) ? This reminded me of <a href="http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside" rel="nofollow">http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside</a> , only now it applies to data and software as all.
I seem to have a lot of native apps on my Google phone.<p>Could somebody point to a summary of Google's cloud strategy? I don't know which services are supposed to be limited to browser windows.
"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now."<p>Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC presentation from a decade before.
What Apple didn't really address is the growing socializing of data and in what context it is consumed, not just by the data's owner, but by their social graph. Without enabling native apps to do this, cross-platform apps will have a lot of room to grow.