Web 2.0 Expo NY 2010: John Gruber, "Apple and the Open Web"

[erikis894]

with this presentation

[Bardock42]

Great points. This is a very interesting talk, and I hadn't seen it like that before, but it makes sense of course, there's no reason to exclude those apps from being part of "the web"...the only thing should be the exclusion of the Flash part of the Web - iOS Venn Diagram

[u9i]

"A love story" LOL. John Gruber has nothing useful to say beyond "I like Macs". Save 10 minutes of your live and skip this video.

[iStig]

@u9i So what's wrong with this presentation then?

[madoujkz]

Pretty thought provoking though...

[mudkipNDS]

ITT: John Gruber finally gets a haircut. A swanky one, too.

[alaamurad]

Dude , drink some water before going to talks ... I heat it when I have to hear your dry mouth ... yuk

[tkornack]

What font is that?

[psycho617]

@tkornack

Futura bold

[seanfitzroy]

Love the Kubrickesque slides!

[rah33ls99]

slightly laboured and shoehorned, but the basic premise is sound.

[rsandilands]

@nicholsml Gruber works for Apple? Just what did he say was dishonest?

[rsandilands]

@nicholsml "Apple is far from "Open" anything."

Yep. Let's just forget webkit then.

[wakachamo]

@nicholsml durrrr herrrp derrp derp derp

[OGdank13]

internet 2.0 strips the internet of anything free and open source

[richardlawler]

Isn't this essentially the same argument that Gruber uses to criticizes Flash?

[BaritusUK]

NIce one John. Seemed like a slooow audience though.

[tyrgoossens]

Very interesting. So actually you could see a web2.0 application as having several "views" associated with in in the form of webpages and apps for different platforms consistent with the MVC pattern. One (web)application, different views.

[nemesh82]

Not the best presenter in the world, but very good points :)

[popstar92]

This guy is such a shill.

[stevesul1]

I am a daring fireball reader but his speech was lacking in substance. Can I get those 10 minutes back?

[AngelChildxxx]

@stevesul1 agree. This is a bit confuse and without an ending.

[roB3rnd]

Sounds like a Priest in a Church... strange Cult.

[Pastaklovn]

This just goes to show that Daring Fireball readers write comments of inappropriate size and intellect for a site like YouTube. Where's the "ur gay" remarks?

[zodieman]

Something to ponder for all of you touting the lack of Flash on iOS products: Where in the web standards (HTML, CSS etc.) is Flash mentioned? It's not because Flash is not a standard as far as the spec is. It's strictly a browser plug-in just like Real Audio (gasp) or Silverlight etc... HTML5 (the new web spec) has audio, video and animation abilities and *that* is where Apple wants to be. It's not that they dislike Flash, but batteries on mobile devices don't last because of it.

[leebdough]

@zodieman Where in the web standards are iOS apps mentioned?

[Jarhead46]

@leebdough Did you actually watch the presentation? Do you have issues with comprehension?

[zodieman]

@leebdough iOS apps have nothing to do with Web standards, it's just an OS. I think Apple is just trying very hard to adhere to web standards when it comes to displaying web content through *their* apps in iOS. It's a purity thing I reckon.

[artformeandyou]

Where's the 480 res??

[beardoc]

Thanks, John. However, I found it interesting that your Venn diagrams featured iOS as fully including the web, when there are major chunks of the web that people want to view and interact with that is supported with the use of Flash. Currently if you browse the web on iOS you can't access all content. Many apps that companies produce for iOS are made for a specific website - to allow them to create the experience that is not possible in a web app, due to Apple's decision not to support Flash.

[oluseyidotinfo]

@beardoc Flash isn't part of the web. It is - very much by definition - a proprietary extension/plugin. What, does iOS now have to support Cooliris, RealMedia, WebTangent, Silverlight and every other proprietary extension? Sure, Flash is extremely popular NOW, and the fact that iOS doesn't support it is a legitimate shortcoming from the perspectives of some users, but these plugins come and go. Better, strategically speaking, to support core, open W3C standards.

[beardoc]

@oluseyidotinfo My point exactly - Flash is popular now, so why not support it? It's quite galling to browse with iPad and come across big spaces where I know content is supposed to be but I can't see it. Other plugins don't make a difference to browsing the web, but Flash certainly does, since it's so pervasive. You are arguing from an ideological standpoint, and I understand your point, but I'm trying to be pragmatic. It's galling to go to major websites and not view content.

[oluseyidotinfo]

@beardoc My argument is the exact opposite of ideology: I was responding to your "it's not the WHOLE web" remark by pointing out that, technically, Flash isn't part of the web. You can download a SWF and run it locally on Flash player outside the browser.

On the one hand Flash is popular now and so there is value in iOS supporting it. On the other hand, ceding control over such a large part of the content we consume on the web to one company is a risk, and Apple is using its leverage against it

[oluseyidotinfo]

@beardoc As someone who is fundamentally ambivalent about Flash as a delivery mechanism (I apparently don't visit these "major websites," LOL) but uses it a lot as a production technology (Flash + After Effects = win) and as someone who only owns a first-gen iPod touch, I really don't have a horse in this race. But as someone who is also a web developer (day job), anything that encourages consistent interpretation of open standards is in my best interest.

[abhibeckert]

@beardoc I challenge you to name an important "experience" flash can create that is not possible using open web standards in a high quality browser, such as the one shipping with iOS. They are few and far between and virtually no sites use them. Webcam support is an example.

Apple's policy is not, and never has been, "we will not ship iOS with flash", it's "adobe is unable to get flash working well, so we won't ship their code with our product. If they get it working well, we'll reconsider".

[dpassen1]

10 minutes of talking and he didn't say a thing

[rayt2006]

Wow, I like John Gruber and his weekly Talkshow with Dan Benjamin, but this talk just sucked. Do we care if Apple is a "Web Company"? Does it matter? He mixes different terms like "Web Apps" with "Web Apps on the Phone". And before the iPhone SDK Release in 2008 there were a lot of web apps on the iPhone. Now, do you actually used one at a daily basis?

And one side note: Webkit doesn't come from Apple alone (remember KHTML?) and even Google is committing to it.

[oluseyidotinfo]

@rayt2006 He did discuss the history and provenance of KHTML. He also mentioned that its licensing was "liberal," which would have allowed Apple to close off their derivative, but instead they chose to open source WebKit and allow (and even encourage) their competition to adopt it.

Still a pointless "talk," though.

[leebdough]

It's remarkable that the closed nature of iOS apps is perfectly fine but the closed nature of Flash is evil in it's purest form.

[mattyohe]

@leebdough Oh, Apple doesn't bash Flash because it's closed, but because it runs so poorly.

[leebdough]

@mattyohe Weird how Flash runs smooth on Windows machines. It's almost as if you'd suspect Apple wanting Flash to run poorly on OS X. Anyway, the IOS apps runs poorly on my Android too.

[oluseyidotinfo]

@leebdough Funny how VLC (among other apps) plays videos smoothly and with hardware acceleration under OS X but Flash couldn't until Apple specifically gave Adobe access to an entry point that nobody else needed...

There's no merit in rehashing this particular course of discussion. Detenté has been achieved somewhat, anyway, with the retraction of 3.3.1. Let's all just move on, eh?

[leebdough]

@oluseyidotinfo I don't know if it's funny or not. I have no experience in developing something as complex as the Flashplayer. I'm pretty sure that the guys on the FP dev team are pretty clever guys.

You're right there's no point. It just makes my blood boil when Apple and their apostles bash SWF for being proprietary but have no problem with IPA. It's hypocrisy.

[oluseyidotinfo]

@leebdough Eh. Apple doesn't bash Flash for being proprietary. They make an accurate distinction that proprietary Flash is not part of the "web," proper, but the bottom line remains poor performance. Apple FANS, on the other hand, do engage in the kind of cognitive dissonance you complain about, but it's not worth getting upset over.

I've developed applications as complex as Flash Player, and the lack of hardware acceleration was legitimately a failure on Adobe's part. It's just not that hard.

[leebdough]

@oluseyidotinfo Apple do bash Flash for being proprietary. If you read Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" on Apples site the proprietary nature is the main concern. It's basically the first thing mentioned.

As you said, It's not worth getting upset about. Fundamentalists are everywhere these days. Even in tech :)

[oluseyidotinfo]

@leebdough You might want to re-read "Thoughts on Flash." It states that Adobe's products are 100% proprietary, and then immediately states that Apple makes proprietary products, too. If that's "bashing" to you, then no wonder you're upset! Quote: "Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."

From where I'm sitting, it's a non-starter.

[Spyroland]

@leebdough does that even mean anything ? How are iOS _apps_ closed ? What has it to do with Flash ? The problem with Flash being closed, contrary to their own APIs or javascript engine, is that the OS vendor can't optimize it, or tweak it (for security, adding touch functionnalities, etc.)

[djchubakka]

@leebdough Is Adobe beholden to Apple in anyway to create their software? Why should Apple support flash when it will always come back to bite them in the ass. Every time Apple updates their software they would have to cross their fingers and hope that Adobe can keep up. Adobe is slow and rarely delivers on time.

[leebdough]

@djchubakka Ofcourse not. All i'm saying is that iPhone apps are just as proprietary as Flash but somehow that's ok because it's Apple.

[djchubakka]

@leebdough But in very different ways. Apple wants the best experience for it's iOS users. Adobe wants people to keep using its software that is inching towards obsolescence. The mobile web is going to dominate everything and flash as it is now sucks on Froyo. Yeah it works. But just barely. Also, any web based app will run on iOS as long as it doesn't use flash. It's totally open in that regard.

[EarendilStar]

@leebdough

[oluseyidotinfo]

There are some interesting observations in this talk, but they don't add up to a cogent thesis. Apple isn't a "great web company." Apple isn't a web company. But neither is Apple hostile to the web, nor are any of its actions hurting the web. Apple has a healthy, symbiotic growth with the web now, and that's more than good enough.

[thomholwerda]

Apple promotes a closed, patent-encumbered codec for web video. Ergo, Apple is not promoting the open web.

[Xipe666]

At least he wears his bias on his sleeve.

[giromide]

Did John pick a shirt that matched his site?

This is a strong argument, and I had never thought about the angle that Apple used WebKit to remove a disadvantage. Also, Apple is indirectly pushing rendering itself to be more efficient and faster. This is yet another facet of technology I shudder to ponder were Apple not involved.

I would also argue that the Newton wasn't interesting because one was limited by the content one could create on it and that it was too bulky. iOS devices let me draw,

[Swift2001]

Why should apps be the same across platforms? If you write an Apple app (and you can write it in Flash, now), you'll need to rewrite it for other platforms, true. Those other platform's apps won't work on iPhones. So? Web browsers, or the rendering engines, will work, and as soon as we can get HTML 5 accepted, there's your universal apps. I don't think that's convoluted: faster, specialized access to data with native apps. Generalized access via the web.

[chuckmcknight]

@Swift2001 Great in theory, but the mobile device manufacturers have been trying to make that work for at least a decade and the mobile operators have been fragmenting things to the point that it doesn't really work in reality. The kicker is that it's not the technology guys who make the decisions, it's the supply chain guys who make the call based on how much it will cost to have a particular set of features.

[gmaletic]

Makes fundamentally sound points, but I'm not sure I understand what the argument is.

"Apple is a great web company" is the conclusion. Does it need to be a great web company? What if it isn't? What difference does it make?

[djchubakka]

@gmaletic The point is that people claim that Apple isn't open or doesn't support the "full" web. If anything Apple has been the best proponent of the mobile web making it one of the most important "web" companies.

[gmaletic]

@djchubakka But why is that important? Who cares if Apple is perceived as an important web company or not? Let's say for argument's sake that they are important. What does that mean?

[djchubakka]

@gmaletic Apple cares. People who develop for the iOS care. It means that Apple isn't against openess and the future of the web.

[gmaletic]

@djchubakka Apple's certainly not against the web—and I don't think anyone could make a cogent argument that they are—but I'm not sure they're for it, either. Suppose the World Wide Web goes away tomorrow (not the network underpinnings, just the hypertext, page-based "web" as we typically know it.) Does Apple care? Not really. Google would. So would Facebook.

I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying, I'm not sure it's an interesting argument to claim whether Apple cares about the web or not.

[ryanmcclung]

@gmaletic Agreed. He isn't really saying anything more than he usually says: "I like Apple a whole lot."

[ankushnarula]

Eh. A narrow and convoluted argument. The point of the open web is that open standards should ideally be used in the entire stack, not just at a particular layer. Native apps aren't portable so it creates excessive development burden to distribute them to a larger audience. And even so, native apps will rarely look/feel uniform across platforms.

[EarendilStar]

@ankushnarula Having a universal tools such as open web standards, that work everywhere and for everything, are awesome. Reminds me of a saying, "Every tool is a hammer, except the chisel, it's a screwdriver". But what if you want precision, and to do the absolute best possible job? Sure you could use a wrench as a hammer, but sometimes you just want a hammer. As such, Native apps still have more power and flexibility on a platform basis. I don't think any "do everything" tool will ever prevail.

[ankushnarula]

@EarendilStar Yes native apps have more power and flexibility IF you're willing to sacrifice portability and cost of development. Sadly, having an iPhone app for your product/service is as fashionable as having a Twitter or Facebook presence. A large number of applications in the App Store could be just as easily have been developed in HTML5 with the exception of apps that rely heavily on native features that are not exposed to the browser.

[EarendilStar]

@ankushnarula Naturally, any product must face cost/benefit. Platform Flexibility may not be as important as taking advantage of in-house talent. There are only a dozen major business decisions that could/should be made before deciding on the development path and target audience. My only point, which I believe you agreed with, is that a multi purpose tool will not, and should not, entirely replace dedicated tools. A tool that does everything, does no one thing well. Every project must prioritize

[timoteofaulkner]

@ankushnarula And truly universal apps will never demonstrate any advantages or disadvantages of any platform... they will sink to the lowest common denominator.

[DreddDwarf]

@tharlowXY

There speaks a born arse licker.

[tharlowXY]

@DreddDwarf

Rimmer? Is that you?

[DreddDwarf]

@tharlowXY

Rob Grant and Doug Naylor just called, they said they want their joke back.

Twit.

[nicklassayshi]

@DreddDwarf ignorant

[DreddDwarf]

@nicklassayshi

I think you mean 'Ignorant.'

Someone calling people ignorant should learn their grammar and punctuation.