In the earliest days, before the Web was invented, the Internet was a network that connected file repositories stored on FTP and Gopher servers. Just like the old dial-up servers before, all that users could do was to download files and applications from a remote server to use on their personal computers. It was all that could be done, and people expected no more.
When the Web came along, all of this changed - albeit slowly. Rather than downloading an application (which only ran if you had the right computer and operating system) or a file (same problems, plus you needed the proper version of a specific software program), you could visit a site that was readable in any Web browser and access applications that ran server-side.
For some time, there was a transition phase in which some firms still required users to download and install applications on their personal computers and others who provided websites that did not require anything to be downloaded or run locally. And of course, websites won - and firms that still provided file repositories were compelled to change their ways, or accept failure in the online channel against competitors who used the Web.
Return to the present: this is the exact same conflict that occurred when I was looking for a restaurant on my mobile device. As backwards as it seems, some firms are treating the mobile channel in the same manner as the pre-Web Internet.
Or more aptly, it's that many customers are treating the mobile channel in a different manner as the Internet. The firms who provide service are merely responding to customer demand - and so long as customers are happy to download applications, firms will provide them.
It seems curious to me that people who are unwilling (and even a bit horrified) to download and install software to their personal computers are so blithe and ignorant about doing the vey same thing on their other personal devices.
Granted, two of the greatest problems have been patched: the potential for an application to be harmful (virus, Trojan horse, or malware) is mitigated by careful screening processes from some of the largest sources of applications; and the fact that downloaded applications go stale is mitigated by automated update functions. The other two, the time involved in downloading and the clutter of one-shot applications that accumulates on the local device, don't seem to bother most users.
So in the end, my sense is that the patches will hold together mobile applications for a while - until there is a serious security incident, users will be indifferent to the potential harm, and providers will continue to support this quaint and outdated method.
I haven't thought about it that way but you're right. I would never download an application on my computer because I am concerned about viruses and there is already too much clutter on my desktop. My phone was junked up with a lot of one shot apps that seemed cute at the time and I have only recently cleaned up a lot of the trash and cut down to the things I use regularly.
ReplyDeleteA point you are missing is that apps have the ability deliver a lot of capabilities that the mobile web currently cannot. Most don’t use those capabilities but a few do. So another reason apps will hang on for a while is because the mobile browser lacks those capabilities. Once someone invents a better browser that is more integrated with the mobile device then that advantage will disappear as well. But for the few applications that really need it there is now no mobile web substitute.