The official, touted-by-Apple SDK for creating iPhone apps uses web-oriented languages like (X)HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Since Apple made this SDK public, some developers (including my employer) have jumped on board, creating iPhone apps that live at public URLs. Other have denounced this practice, suggesting that apps should not be targeted at one device, but rather be equally accessible from any phone, PDA, computer, or other web-browsing tool.
If you are one of these “others,” I have a question for you: would you be saying the same thing if Apple’s official SDK used languages and APIs that aren’t typically thought of as “for the web,” and the apps were stored locally, rather than living at a URL?
In other words, if the Apple SDK for iPhone development was Cocoa, rather than HTML/CSS/JS, would you still find it horribly offensive that the apps were made only for iPhone?
If so, why?
Sorry, the time to post comments to this entry has expired.
001 // Josh Blount // 07.18.2007 // 9:59 AM
Not to get stuck in the middle of a fight, but isn’t this just bringing us back to creating multiple sites for different browsers?
My main issue is that these new apps (Leaflets included) don’t allow other browsers access, when there really shouldn’t be any issue with access to the newly developed apps. Walled gardens and such.
002 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 10:10 AM
Josh…you’re missing my point.
They’re iPhone apps. They’re not web sites — at least not in the traditional sense. If you think Leaflets should run in every browser on every device, then I presume you also think the built in Mail.app, Safari, and iPod tools should run on every browser and device, too? They’re iPhone apps — they’re made to run an on iPhone. Just like Mac apps are made to run on a Mac and Linux apps are made to run on Linux.
For the record, though — Leaflets do work in any browser. They’re nothing stopping you from going to http://app.getleaflets.com in whatever browser you like on the device of your choosing. Go for it.
003 // Josh Blount // 07.18.2007 // 10:17 AM
Aha. I think I did lose the plot somewhere in there. Forgive my borderline zealotry.
004 // Chris Harrison // 07.18.2007 // 10:17 AM
I’m still on the fence about this subject. While yes, we should be developing sites for use on any device/browser, there hasn’t been anything quite like the iPhone in terms of how one uses and views the internet on a mobile device… (Before I get flamed, I realize that the iPhone isn’t the first device to allow mobile browsing… mobile Opera, Pocket IE, etc. are “decent”, but they’re not quite where the iPhone’s Safari is at…)
Re: Josh’s comment about apps like Leaflet becoming a walled garden… interoperability is there, as long as you use Safari. Obviously, by excluding other browsers, they’re limiting who will use it, but they’ve specifically designed the site to work with the iPhone & Safari on Mac or PC. That’s a choice/business decision that they feel is the right thing to do for them. Only time will tell if it’s a good decision.
005 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 10:23 AM
CHris, just for the record, you can view Leaflets in any browser. You’ll get a warning letting you know that it might not look right in non-Safari browsers, but if you want to view it in Firefox or other, you certainly can.
006 // Chris Harrison // 07.18.2007 // 10:41 AM
Jeff, I saw that… and I stand corrected :)
007 // Clay Preheim // 07.18.2007 // 11:05 AM
It’s an interesting discussion, to be sure.
I think most of us look back at the days of “works best in Internet Explorer” with disdain — the whole idea is that if both browser vendors and web developers adhere to the same “standards,” then any site should work great in any browser, on any device, on any platform, right?
From that point of view, certain people’s reactions to iPhone-specific development is at least understandable — “are we taking a big step backwards in making websites for a specific browser on a specific platform?”
Jeff, it sounds like your response to that is, “A-ha, but we’re not making websites, we’re making applications, and Apple just happens to have appointed Safari as the platform.”
And in large part, after consideration, I would agree with that stance. There’s nothing wrong with making an “app” for an iPhone, just like there’s nothing wrong with making an app for OS X or Linux or Windows. In fact, the iPhone is especially exciting, precisely because all of us web designers/developers can suddenly make a device-specific “app” without needing to dive into something like Cocoa.
I think the gray area here is what is an app, and what is a website. Leaflets, for example, are particularly gray, because while you’re saying “they’re apps, not websites,” one then looks at the getleaflets.com homepage and is suddenly confused: google, yahoo, wikipedia, rss, newsvine, new york times, flickr, delicious…… That certainly sounds like a list of websites, right?
Bottom line: I think making iPhone-specific apps is pretty nifty, that Apple has made it nice and easy, and that, in the sense that they greatly enhance the experience of using an iPhone, they clearly have their place. I just think it will remain a confusing space for awhile among web developers, in that what one person calls an “app,” another will call a “website,” and based on the preconceptions that go along with each, some people will think things like Leaflets are fantastic, and some will think that we’re taking a step backwards.
Of course, app vs. website is a discussion that has been going on long before the iPhone was first conceived, and this is in part a continuation of that semantic debate.
008 // Wilson Miner // 07.18.2007 // 11:11 AM
I don’t see what the fuss is about. As far as I’m concerned, it all makes common sense:
Good (or totally acceptable)
Bad
009 // Clay Preheim // 07.18.2007 // 11:46 AM
As an aside, seeking a clarification regarding iPhone development:
My understanding is that iPhone-specific development consists mostly of two things: a set width that matches the iPhone’s resolution, and the use of certain CSS elements that, as of right now, only Safari 3 / Mobile Safari support.
Is that right?
If so, at least it’s all based on standards (except the screen res part) — it’s not like things are being developed that have Safari-specific code, per se, it’s just that Safari happens to be the only browser that has implemented certain portions of the CSS spec thus far.
010 // Chris Griffin // 07.18.2007 // 11:47 AM
I think the line is drawn between iPhone users and non-iPhone users. iPhone users don’t have a problem with made for iPhone apps because they can access them and make use of them. While, non-iPhone users feel like they weren’t invited to the party and can’t see what all the fuss is about.
I just got my iPhone last Friday—a good 2 weeks after they were released. So those 2 weeks I was iPhone-less I heard all this iPhone talk and I couldn’t see what people were talking about.
Saying that, I don’t have a problem with made for iPhone web apps, even before I had one. Every iPhone app I’ve seen so far is either a web app that already exists that has UI optimized for iPhone, or rehash of an web application that already exists (such as the Leaflets feedreader).
I think it’s more about the exclusiveness of the made-for-iPhone apps, rather than an application targeted at one device.
011 // Nathan Borror // 07.18.2007 // 11:53 AM
Well said Wilson. I think the best example of iPhone optimization is Apple’s movie trailer section.
012 // Su // 07.18.2007 // 12:33 PM
I wonder how much overlap there is between these people and the ones who think all web applications should work in IE5 with Javascript turned off. (That’s a bit exagerrated, but not much.) Part of the issue seems to be that the presumed egalitarianism of anything that uses the web tends to override the fact that applications have requirements.
013 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 12:53 PM
The problem with the iPhone specific-apps is coming from the idea that the iPhone, as demonstrated via Apple’s amazing marketing campaign, delivers the real, unfiltered Internet to your finger tips via Safari. That’s the bottom line.
I don’t think that made-for-iPhone apps is a bad idea, but (1), they are being created under a false premise, and (2), people, including myself, have misunderstood them.
When you look at it as though these Web-apps have been made strictly for a specific browser and platform, well that just goes against our principles and guiding practices that we’ve collectively strived to achieve over the years. However, when you find out that they work just as well in other browsers, that’s a different story. Developing for specific platforms while singling out others is simply unwise.
Moreover, when the masses are promised the real and non-watered-down Internet, they’re surprised to find that the iPhone isn’t as magical as they had thought. That still isn’t accurate; the iPhone is truly a wondrous device, one that is sure to raise the bar. The iPhone inhibits a user’s experience slightly - as Jeff brought to my attention in his previous post’s commentary - while AT&T nearly handicaps the device that was set to revolutionize the way we think of mobile devices.
Those two realizations make for one stunning conclusion: the iPhone, as supercool and badass as we may believe it to be, is not the end-all-be-all for mobile devices. More versions will come, and hopefully speeds will pick up to allow for a more relaxed, less interrupted Web experience on a mobile device.
Until then, there only remains one question: is it ethical, and even practical, to bank on the iPhone’s shortcomings, even if it seemingly goes against Web standards and best usability/accessibility practices? (Surely this is a more difficult question than it looks, but I think it is a subsequent one to consider after Jeff’s posed question).
014 // John Nunemaker // 07.18.2007 // 1:04 PM
I see it as ok. The difference is what you need access to when you are on your iphone and how it should be presented to you is different than what you need sitting at a laptop with a 20” screen.
Why does google create m.gmail.com, etc.? Because you don’t want all of gmail when you are mobile. You just want quick access to new mail. I see the same principles in creating iphone specific apps.
015 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 2:17 PM
Well, good iPhone-specific development takes more into consideration than this (how does the low bandwidth affect design? how about the method of scrolling? of clicking? of zooming? etc.). But, your point stands — it’s all standards-based.
I do too. For the most part, people who actually have an iPhone seem to love apps optimized for the device (as long as they can still get to the ones that aren’t, of course).
Great comment. You pretty much nailed it, as far as I’m concerned.
That’s a great quote. Well-said, man.
@Mark: I don’t really disagree with most of what you’ve said — I just think you’re still ignoring the fact that the context in which we use a mobile device is different than the context in which we use a desktop computer. Apps and sites can be optimized for this context. That’s all I’m suggesting.
Can you tell me what web standards and best practices we’re going against with Leaflets? Everything we’ve done is standards-based. It’s all accessible on any device. I just don’t see how this goes against the spirit of standards. Can you explain?
Exactly. It’s about context. And, screen size is only one of many factors that contribute to that context.
Great discussion, guys! :)
016 // Jeff Self // 07.18.2007 // 2:52 PM
Here’s the problem I have. These apps are for the iPhone for one reason only. Apple has included hooks into Safari for these apps to work. This is vendor lock-in. Just like all those websites that required IE, you know, the ones that used Active X. Apple touts open standards, yet locks you in to their browser. Look at the phones getting ready to come out that run Linux. I’m sure Firefox will be running on these. Do we now have to write apps for those phones as well?
Apple needs to open the specs up for the hooks so that Firefox can have them, so that Opera can have them, and so that, yes, even IE can have them.
By the way, I own 4 Apple computers.
017 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 2:58 PM
Sorry, you’re mistaken. There are no “hooks” for iPhone apps in Safari. Safari on the iPhone uses the exact same rendering engine as Safari on the desktop. I’d agree with you if you were correct, but you’re not.
018 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 3:28 PM
I’m getting an internal server error (500) when trying to reply. Any ideas?
019 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 3:33 PM
Mark: you probably have non-ASCII characters (like curly quotes or apostrophes) in your response. I need to fix this bug, but for not it chokes on those.
020 // Baxter // 07.18.2007 // 4:51 PM
To me, it’s simple, you’re allowing the iPhone user to have an experience better suited to their choice of user agent, and you’re not denying anyone a good experience. Therefore, there’s no problem.
I think we’re going to see more of this sort of thing, taking advantage of advanced features certain browsers and devices, while still providing a full experience to everyone. Maybe that’s a special layout for small screens, maybe it’s text shadowing for Safari and anyone else who implements it.
The key, to me, is this: if you don’t have the device, you’re not missing anything. As long as that’s true, I figure there’s no harm.
Then again, you already know I kinda miss the browser wars. At least there was a rapid adoption of new browser features then, even if it was a mess for developers.
At any rate, we’re all going to have to at the very least make sure our sites look and work well on the iPhone. I know I’ve got some work to do on that.
021 // Fred F. // 07.18.2007 // 5:09 PM
@Jeff: Do you know if the webkit CSS styles have been folded back into the KHTML project?
Are they in use in the Nokia browser?
022 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 5:32 PM
@Fred: I don’t know for sure, but my guess is the answer is “some of them.”
023 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 5:42 PM
Trying this again…
Firstly, optimization and completely new websites/Web-apps are completely different. Optimizing for a platform? Use a new stylesheet with the same content. New service to get the same content I could another way? Not so much alike.
Secondly, I’ve taken the context into consideration as best as I can, Jeff, and I’ve yielded to the idea that there are two different experiences being discussed here: mobile and desktop. I completely agree and understand that now.
What I and many others are (mistakenly) referring to is that developers are using widely available languages (XHTML/CSS with AJAX) to create custom solutions for only one platform: the iPhone. On that premise, we’re throwing up red flags because Web development should not depend on user platform or browser choice.
A point I think that was somewhat lost or not well explained in my first comment is that the iPhone isn’t as great as we want it to be, thus the need to develop methods of limiting the scope of those shortcomings. Is that wrong on any level? Absolutely not.
But none of this is clear to people, and while you can easily dismiss the notions that others have asserted here, not all of us are as enlightened to your beliefs and general Web knowledge as others and, well, yourself.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but is there really no Safari-specific CSS in the Leaflets? Are they of fixed width (and if so, px or em)? What browsers do they and don’t they work in, and if so, why is that? And, to disprove the notion of a singular platform, what other mobile devices are able to use these Leaflets (demonstrations or screenshots would be very convincing to the masses)?
I have my doubts, but I do understand what you’re saying Jeff. I think all my doubts would be set aside if yourself or someone else answered the above questions and could prove that this isn’t just another “mobile Web” in disguise.
024 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 5:42 PM
And Jeff, you were right about the curly quotes. I copy and pasted from other comments and didn’t double check. Took awhile to nail ‘em all.
Thanks ;).
025 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 6:09 PM
I guess, but if your complaint is that a bunch of completely new websites/apps are being created for the iPhone, I think you might be barking at a straw man. Where are they? I can only speak for Leaflets, but I can say it certainly isn’t an entirely new site or app. It’s an alternative, iPhone-optimized version of other apps that already exist (Flickr, Upcoming, RSS readers like Bloglines and Google Reader, etc.).
That’s exactly what Apple told developers to do. If Apple had instead told them to create custom solutions with Cocoa, would you be so bothered by it? Developers are just using the tools Apple has given them for creation of iPhone apps.
Well, I definitely apologize if I came off as dismissive. I don’t intended to be.
No, there’s no Safari-specific CSS in Leaflets. There is CSS3 in there that happens to only be supported by Safari — but it’s not Safari-specific CSS> It’s just regular old CSS3, as specified by the spec. In other words, web standards. It’s not Blue Flavor’s fault that Firefox and the others are behind on supporting it.
I’m not sure I understand the reason for the question, but they are fixed width, and done with pixels, I believe (I didn’t create them, and I haven’t looked to be certain — but I’m pretty sure). This question is irrelevant, though, as both fixed and fluid and both pixels and ems are within the realm of web standards and best practices.
Like all web standards-based development, they’ll work in any browser. And, like all web standards-based development, you may get a degraded experience if you use them in older browsers. Visit http://app.getleaflets.com in any browser — from Lynx to Netscape 1.1N to IE5 to IE7 to Firefox 2 — it will work. That’s what web standards gets you.
Any mobile device. I just pulled it up on my two year old crappy Sprint Samsung A900. Works fine. You need proof? Fine, give me a few minutes and I’ll post some pictures to my Flickr.
026 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 6:10 PM
Yeah, that’s an annoying bug. I really need to fix it. Sorry about that.
027 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 6:31 PM
Thank you, Jeff. This is why I enjoy your work and your site.
I don’t know if I’d be worked up over the iPhone apps if they were written in Cocoa over HTML/CSS/AJAX. Admittedly, nearly every app on every other device is probably proprietary or of some other flavor, so I’m not sure. I have no direct answer truthfully and it might depend on whether or not these are specifically iPhone apps or mobile apps.
And, prior to elaboration and commentary here, I didn’t think it was as standards-compliant or usable on different devices. My fear was that the iPhone display would call for fixed pixel widths and would be cropped or rendered poorly on other devices - that’s not the case though?
I’ve seen a few other iPhone-specific design topics across the Interweb, including imitation widgets and what-have-you, but none as good-looking or sounding as Leaflets.
Just out of curiosity then: why did Blue Flavor decide to utilize CSS3 when only Safari supports it, which only iPhone users (and obviously those running Windows or using Macs) can use to their fullest? The simple answer is because Safari is on the iPhone and Leaflets are iPhone apps, but if the claim is being made that these are more than iPhone apps and can be used across browsers, why not use what is supported by the rest of the browsers? (I must note I have no idea how much CSS3 is being used, only that it is).
028 // Keith // 07.18.2007 // 6:47 PM
I want to address one particular statement Mark made (#23):
bq. “Optimizing for a platform? Use a new stylesheet with the same content.”
When were talking Mobile, this isn’t always the best idea. In a mobile context you don’t always want the same content. For example, let’s look at Jeff’s homepage. There are a whole lot of things that don’t interest me in a mobile specific context. The photos for example. I wouldn’t probably want to browse those from my phone. Sure you could hide those with a stylesheet, but they’ll still be downloaded thus decreasing the user experience.
Mobile stylesheets are one option and often a good one, but they don’t always help to address the context question. To provide the best possible mobile experience you need to take a step back and ask what a person would want to do while in a mobile context.
It’s a much more complicated question and problem than a simple mobile style can often deal with.
The whole goal with Leaflets is to provide the user with the best possible experience. To do that we can’t simply slap a new stylesheet in there. Sure part of the reason why it works so well, so fast, is that because of CSS 3 support we can do things to optimize the experience that we can’t otherwise do. Luckily we coded with standards so you can get a less-than-optimal experience on other platforms, but again, we’re shooting for a great, context-centered experience.
To do that we needed to also address the content. We had to taylor that to a mobile experience.
A simple mobile stylesheet wouldn’t cut it.
029 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 6:47 PM
Blue Flavor has a pretty strong commitment to standards. Most everything we do should be in the spirit of web standards!
With hundreds upon hundreds of different devices out there, I can’t be sure. But, that’s the web standards way: code to the spec, and expect the browser makers to render that spec in a way that makes sense for their device. Any device with good support for web standards should work fine with Leaflets — in theory, anyway.
Because Safari is what’s on the iPhone. And Leaflets are conceived, designed, and built with the iPhone in mind. 99% of Leaflet users will be iPhone users.
I imagine, when you redesign your blog, you probably look at what browsers your users are using, right? And then, from that, you make a reasonable assessment as to what level of CSS you will use. For example, if Firefox, Safari, and IE6+ make up 95% of your traffic, you may choose to use CSS that doesn’t work in IE5. You’re still supporting IE5 — since you use web standards, IE5 will see your content. But, it may not getting the same level of CSS beauty as IE6 or the other newer browser.
We basically did the same process for Leaflets. We figure that nearly everyone who uses Leaflets will be on an iPhone (and thus, Safari 3). If that proves to be untrue — if we get 10% of our traffic from Firefox, for example — we may have to reconsider the use of CSS3. But you and I both know we won’t be getting 10% of our traffic from Firefox — right?
We didn’t claim Leaflets worked well until other browsers until people started asking. We definitely built Leaflets for iPhone users. If you want to use it in some other browser, and it works well for you — awesome. We’re certainly not going to stop you. But our target market is iPhone users. I’m not trying to deny that at all.
030 // Keith // 07.18.2007 // 6:52 PM
Brian could answer this in more detail than I, but… But the reason why is that CSS3 supports things that make the experience better. (Shooting for the best possible mobile experience.) Things like multiple background support that greatly reduce load time, etc. That was the reason.
031 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 6:57 PM
Right. Another example is the
border-radiusproperty. By using it to achieve rounded corners, we don't have to serve up more images. Not only does this reduce bandwidth usage, it also reduces latency hang-ups — which is the real killer on EDGE.032 // Mark Otto // 07.18.2007 // 7:11 PM
Gotcha.
Completely agree.
(This is where myself and everyone else should have a tiny light bulb flicking on in their heads.)
I suppose the arguments can go on and on, but when it comes down to it, they are iPhone apps and I don’t have a problem with that. It’s the fact that they on the Internet that will catch people off guard and steer them towards this type of argument.
033 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 7:24 PM
True. And I don’t blame people for asking the questions. But I still wonder: if we’d been able to make Leaflets iPhones that were installed onto the iPhone, rather than that live at a URL — would anyone care about the fact that they were made for iPhone?
That’s the question I was asking at the beginning of all this: do people actually care that apps are made just for iPhone? If so, why is no one really upset that MobileMail and MobileSafari only work on iPhone? Or the iPod app? Why is no one up in arms about the fact that you can’t use the iPod app on other mobile devices? Or hell — the phone app. Why does no one care that I can’t use the phone app on my Mac?
Really, it’s the same thing. We made iPhone apps, just like Apple made iPhone apps. We just happened to make them using web technologies because that’s the only way anyone but Apple can make iPhone apps.
034 // doug // 07.18.2007 // 8:02 PM
The Internet is global, that is what will make it so powerful. A mobile Internet device needs to be designed to work globally.
Apple has made a really cool device. It just is not one that everyone can use. I can afford to buy one but a large number of people can not. I can activate it if I have an Apple PC or Windows PC but I don’t. Most of the world is not able to even afford an brand name PC but to add a $600 device on top of that is really out of reach for most.
I see the truly revolutionary device as something affordable to a vast number of people that is not locked into a single US or European company or network running application upon application- flawlessly.
To unlock the full potential of the Internet we need to concentrate our energy putting something functional in everyones hands not just something pretty in ours.
035 // Jeff Croft // 07.18.2007 // 8:36 PM
@doug: Don’t really disagree with you at all, but I don’t see how any of that is relevant to this discussion. Your point is that more inexpensive devices are needed. Got it. Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about iPhone apps…
036 // Steve O // 07.18.2007 // 10:18 PM
I personally don’t see what the big deal is here. Some dudes wanted apps that were optimized for their iPhones, so they wrote them. And now they don’t have to strain their eyes or pinch their fingers to do some web browsing. Big deal. If you don’t like it, don’t use the service. Or, write your own, like they did. When you have 3 inch screens and 30 inch monitors fighting over the same content, why should it all be delivered in the same package?
037 // Arik Jones // 07.19.2007 // 2:48 PM
Someone just needs to create a sort of “leaflets” api. A little web development toolbox and framework specifically for the iPhone. And maybe this framework would include best practice css and js libraries, plugins and extensions for django, rails, etc.
You get the idea. Streamline the process, stop making it bigger.
038 // Grant Blakeman // 07.19.2007 // 3:13 PM
Well, I don’t really understand the weird flak you and Blue Flavor are getting over this. Seems a bit of iPhone envy wrapped up in jealousy that you guys were able to (so nicely) capitalize on an obvious need for the great new device first.
I don’t have an iPhone, but I took the apps for a spin on Safari 3 Beta. I have to say that they’re really slick. If I did have an iPhone, I’d probably be glued to leaflets. Well done.
039 // Arik Jones // 07.19.2007 // 3:49 PM
Considering only 5-10% of the US population actually owns an iPhone right now I don’t see any reason put a lot of stock into all of this. I figure now is the time to work on getting it right and everything else is just an after thought.
However, leaflets is awesome. I just want to see something improve about the process as opposed to just smaller version of what we’ve been doing for years.
040 // Kevan Emmott // 07.19.2007 // 9:56 PM
My bigger problem is that the space on the iPhone’s home screen is not (yet) customizable to be able to include your choice of any of these web-based apps people are making.
041 // Mark // 07.21.2007 // 9:45 AM
Your local grammar Nazi here, you might want to fix your post title:
“A question for those who think made-for-iPhone apps are a bad idea”
Plural! :)
042 // Carly // 07.26.2007 // 4:43 AM
Seems this is going the way of the iPod and music formats being targetted to that device. I guess companies want to be the “standard”, Symbian is great but they are signing their fate with Signed garbage.
I don’t want an iPhone, other devices like the Nokia N95 are far superior. But it will be interesting to see how this evolves.
043 // HR // 08.20.2007 // 4:36 AM
Hmm… then I guess that nobody here will complain when Microsoft comes with some kind of MS-HTML 6 which only works in IE, right? They just need to say “hey, they are not websites, just apps, but the platform is IE”. I wonder why anybody complained in the 90s with Netscape and IE fighting over HTML. They should just have said “they are apps, not websites”…
This is bad. Information should not be constrained by the software you use to access it.
044 // Jeff Croft // 08.20.2007 // 10:23 AM
HR: I’d be very upset if MS came out with a new version of HTML that only worked in IE. Likewise, I’d be very upset if Apple came out with new version of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. that only worked on the iphone.
Thankfully, Apple hasn’t done that — all iPhone apps are based entirely on web standards, so they work just fine in any browser that supports web standards.
045 // Carly // 08.29.2007 // 1:10 AM
“Visit http://app.getleaflets.com in any browser — from Lynx to Netscape 1.1N to IE5 to IE7 to Firefox 2 — it will work. That’s what web standards gets you. ”
I just tried it on a Nokia N70 that’s using ICS over bluetooth and it works perfect, and fast!
If anything, it actually looks better then a desktop browser. The color squares on the phone are horizontal colored bars with the menu text aligned perfectly down the center. The page loads are “very” snappy and it’s 100% usable.
All the leaflets look and function fine on this platform, i’ve seen alot worse implementation on applications targeted to this device.
046 // Tony Stark // 11.08.2007 // 8:18 AM
Apple has so far been smart enough not to create any such proprietary software. It’s been long enough now that things should have shaken out to where we can see where everybody’s headed. Besides, another nifty new competing phone will come along soon enough and all the coders won’t want to design another program…
047 // Ed Gein // 02.29.2008 // 8:33 PM
I personally don’t see what the big deal is here. Some people wanted applications that were optimized for their iPhones, so they wrote them. And now they don’t have to strain their eyes or pinch their fingers to do some web browsing. Big deal. If you don’t like it, don’t use the service. Or, write your own, like they did. When you have 3 inch screens and 30 inch monitors fighting over the same content, why should it all be delivered in the same package?
048 // Luc // 09.17.2008 // 2:50 PM
Great thread,so great that reading through it, you guys gave the solution to a problem that was nagging for a while.
For the past. 2 weeks I could not reply to my corporate email that uses Outlook through a Web interface. Each time I was getting Error 500 when trying. Then someone mention he was getting this error when trying to repy. Someone then answered back about using non standard character.
2 weeks ago, I changed the UI on my iPhone from English to French (which in This language curly quoted are typographic STD. Changed back to ENG UI and bingo, problem solved ! Many thanks
049 // Brads // 01.06.2009 // 2:35 PM
Apple has made a really cool device. It just is not one that everyone can use. I can afford to buy one but a large number of people can not. I can activate it if I have an Apple PC or Windows PC but I don’t. Most of the world is not able to even afford an brand name PC but to add a $600 device on top of that is really out of reach for most.
050 // SiPKisplill // 02.28.2010 // 7:16 PM
Пост понравился, пишите еще. Я с удовольствием прочту.