'When something becomes ubiquitous, it disappears'
As browsing the web becomes integrated into devices and apps, the notion of a web browser from a user's perspective disappears. This has profound implications for Mozilla.
If there were a God then he would somehow make Microsoft license Gecko and put it on their smart phones and tablets instead of IE.
Or, maybe someone will realize that we don't want giant companies like Apple and Google controlling WebKit and have that turn into another Win32 and so they will use Boot2Gecko on their smartphones or whatever.
I mean I really prefer developing for WebKit and it seems like "the best" but I think if Gecko goes away then progress could stagnate, things could start to suck and we will be stuck with basically one thing and just a couple of companies controlling it.
Completely Agree. Gecko needs to remain relevant just for the sake of competition but Mozilla needs to really pick it up and fix Firefox's performance issues and gain traction on mobile devices.
He could have also titled this "We are Entering the Era of the Web Application Platform".
You really need to watch the video to get most of what he is saying. The title definitely doesn't capture a lot of it and is actually kind of misleading.
Anyway, to make it simple for TC39, how about ES6 = CoffeeScript with require/exports like Node.js. Done. Mailing list closed until 2014.
One thing threatening this whole investment in the web platform is that if it doesn't install exactly like a regular app and run exactly like a regular app and look exactly like a regular app, then its not an app. So you can add all the features you want to HTML5, but if you screw up those things I just mentioned, its a waste. And I really want HTML5 to succeed bigtime on tablets and smartphones. If it doesn't, then this guy may turn out to be wrong about the new era.
Interesting idea. But the browser is the universal interface that lets us organize and deliver content. Anything replacing it would have to do that at the very least.... And what more?
This isn't about protocols or technologies like browsers to me a it is about the expressive. The browser is ubiquitous and still growing it's reach. Like protocolS and clients, the browser should eventually get long in the tooth.
But we are kind of evolving how we see things in the browser, be it html 5 or mobile.
Almost 20 years and running, I don't know if I'd go with that whole transitional part.
We could change its name as specs evolve, but the idea of (and demand for) an information browser will remain so long as humans find it desirable to not personally decipher the code for each page or application.
Hop into the iTunes Store - you're suddenly in an 'information browser.' As a general consumer, whether you're looking at information on the web or some other platform, you will be using a browser of some sort. A web browser just happens to be for the web, and that isn't going anywhere any time soon. The curve to change mass consumer behavior is extremely high once you've deployed a billion versions of a software concept and people find it comfortable and effective to use.
Sure, but the current obsession with turning it into a complete application development platform that implements 9/10ths of an operating system may turn out to be transitory.
Personally I'd much rather have something that's secure and stable and lightweight that does a few things well than a CPU-burning Javascript goliath, riddled with security holes and providing a least-common-denominator experience on every platform. Sites like HN show that the web doesn't have to be glitzy to be useful.
They're only turning into operating systems because the operating system vendors, all of them, have gotten "deployment" completely and utterly wrong, and the web has got it halfway right. It's not that the web is massively good at deployment, it's just that everyone else is so bad at it that the web wins despite being worse as an app dev platform in almost every other aspect.
This is what the web does right that OS's get wrong: cross-platform development without any vendor lock-in (not even dev tools lock-in), no installation required before using an app, no permission grants required before using an app, implicitly up-to-date without restarting the app (every click has the potential to load an updated feature), highly granular downloading of features on-demand (downloading the behavior behind every click as you are working, which is crazy when you think about it), and secure and reliable distributed computing. The only thing it gets wrong is offline support (HTML5 appcache doesn't cut it).
So, right now as a developer you can build your apps on a platform that gets deployment right (the web), or one that gets app development right (native). Someone will build a technology that combines those benefits, and people will use that instead of HTML/CSS/JS to build applications. I'm looking forward to that.
I would have cited Craigslist rather than HN for the mass appeal factor, but even there I don't agree.
Glitz sells.
If web standards don't evolve and support increasingly advanced design and interactivity then we're pushing people straight into the arms of the App Store and its ilk.
That's not to say there isn't a line between advanced functionality and bloat. Ideally dead simple like HN should utilize minimal overhead.
The thing that bothers me about web development is that in order to get all that glitz and glam, you end up writing an application that practically mirrors a native application. At that stage, what have you really gained? A relatively slow and limited VM, often lesser development tools, but a really great distribution model.
I am constantly impressed by the boundaries people are pushing with the browser. Just the other day I read about someone releasing a cell phone tethering application that runs in the browser. That is amazing, but also ridiculous, in my mind, that it is useful beyond anything more than an academic exercise.
The web browser should be another network application, not the platform for network applications. I feel we could do so much better.
We've been hearing this lament from GUI developers for a long time. App development on the web is an abuse of HTML and HTTP and that it's a huge step backwards even from decades-old GUI toolkits.
The problem with that line of thinking is that GUI toolkits will never be cross-platform and cross-medium in the way the web is. It's not like there haven't been attempts, but they are all half-baked because there is no incentive for platforms to support them. The web on the other hand is must-have for every device. This momentum is what gives web app technology real legs.
It's really a textbook example of how worse-is-better can be disruptive, and how what we end up with has no correlation to what any one individual thinks is best. It doesn't really how much better an idea someone can come up with, the question is what can the industry be mobilized to get behind.
As browsing the web becomes integrated into devices and apps, the notion of a web browser from a user's perspective disappears. This has profound implications for Mozilla.