On Facebook and Twitter - 80% of the content that makes people come back daily for more has links in it. These links could be application specific, sure they can, however the attention span on Twitter is small enough without putting barriers between users and the product / content served. Take away the web and social applications, no matter how awesome they are, will lose a lot of value.
I actually think the opposite is true - I think that Facebook and Twitter are going to die eventually. That's because the need for these social networks was satisfied in an age where phones weren't directly connected to the Internet. One missing point from these discussions is that a social network already existed before these - with much stronger ties between people - a social network enabled by your contacts book. It didn't scale however because of a lack of software and because calls / SMS messages are expensive. If mobile carriers would pull their heads out of their ass and made SMS free, then Facebook and Twitter would become irrelevant.
Why? Because then people could send updates and links to other people, regardless of their device type, anywhere in the world. Then you could have evolved SMS managers that knew how to handle groups, deliver digests, take care of spam and so on (like email clients do). If you need a stronger indication that this is true - consider how nothing replaced email yet, no matter how many predictions of death went by ;)
Nice quote from Seth Godin linked in the article:
The problem with just about every prediction made by industry firms like Forrester (all the way back to 1985 when these firms said that the Commodore 64 was going to change the world–until the VCR interrupted to become the next big thing) is that they are based on sophisticated analysis of what’s in the rear-view mirror.
Email is still effective, even though it's the most cost-effective way of sending spam. This is due to spam filters.
On Android for instance call blockers are allowed on the marketplace (versus iOS) - https://market.android.com/search?q=calls+blocker&c=apps - many of those apps allow you to have a blacklist of phone numbers, or you can just specify that you only want SMS from your contacts.
Better filters can always be built. Also, even though the sending of SMS may be free at some point, getting new numbers will not be free and getting your numbers flagged by blacklists will get costly.
Native Apps vs HTML is just a microcosm of proprietary vs open standards which is always turtle vs hare. In short, native apps can always be better as long as they stay ahead, but the progress of open standards is inexorable because it provides greater portability benefits than any one vendor can match. Furthermore, it's possible to slow open standards as Microsoft did in the early 00s, but it requires immense market power and sacrifice of the user experience which is why Apple chooses to simply stay ahead of standards rather than letting mobile safari rot on the vine.
There will always be things native apps can do that standards can't, but open standards will always be more accessible and they will just get better and better.
I'm puzzled by this cage match mentality: two enter, only one can leave.
I think that for the indefinite future, we will see co-existence and mutual co-opting of technologies. A nice arms race, with occasional routs and victories in particular areas, but no clear victor overall.
For one thing, discoverability difficulties are a temporary barrier to native app stores, it's not as though search engine technology can't work in controlled environments like app stores. Web apps also have discoverability issues (hence SEO) but no one freaks out too much about that.
The web will continue to grow and prosper, but native apps will also become ever richer as the frameworks created by Apple and Google grow in sophistication.
The talk was basically flamebait. His main argument for "web is dead" revolved around increasing power of client devices, and he completely ignored that web technologies (aka HTML5) make great use of that computational power.
There are more valid arguments he could have made, e.g. native apps being more flexible or easier to monetize, but increased computational power is orthogonal to the web/native debate, as long as people keep innovating on both platforms. Which they are, furiously.
Note to those who haven't read the article: the article agrees in a less-inflammatory way with mmahemoff.
However I think the article is worth reading because it appears that the talk brought up a new argument about why the "web is dead". It's interesting, but both mmahemoff and the article's author think it's wrong. So do I, but it was an interesting argument.
Its as simple as a loft apartment versus a space with several bedrooms. The web is a loft apartment, where you can flow freely from area to area... The multi-room setup is the world of using apps. To get into each room, you need to open a door and then if there are no doors between rooms, you need to exit each room and navigate to other rooms. The process of switching rooms becomes tedious. The open web will always resurface in some shape or form because no provider can provide a one-source app capable in fulfilling everyone's needs on the web. Facebook, Twitter, and iTunes are all part of the push for one single company to hold monopolies on audiences but it can't happen because people crave something different, if not now they will after a period of time. Coexistence is the way forward. Companies may have a hard time learning this, but it will always be the trend even if it starts out in a bootleg manner.
Great post. I had this same realization not too long ago.
I am a firm believer that HTML/CSS/Javascript will eventually take the role of all mobile applications in the future. While mobile applications do provide the benefits of interacting with the mobile OS at a lower level, browsers are becoming more and more powerful. The line dividing the OS and the browser is getting lower as seen in some OS's including Google's Chrome OS.
Why HTML5? While browser incompatibility is still an issue, HTML is the most supported and consistent markups on the internet; everyone uses it.
In addition, Apps written in HTML5/CSS/Javascript are all hosted on the server, meaning that it is very simple to update your product. It is more difficult with mobile OS based Apps for which you have to send an update to the phone each time you update the product.
Yes, this. App stores are like a new-fangled version of old-school Yahoo.
In the early internet, it made sense to sort web sites into categories and curate the best ones into lists. Eventually, the internet became too big for that, and search became necessary to cut through the mass of things people could find or wanted to find.
App stores are showing the strains of this today. Discoverability is through the floor. It's also important to note the power of a lightweight link. Web links can be shared with the assumption that a friend can open them with zero friction. This becomes much different when a user has to install an app, possibly even a paid app, to see what you sent.
As it stands right now, I can't apply the four updates available to the (very few) Android apps I have installed until I "agree to the Android Market Terms of Service, the Google Music Terms of Service, the Google Books Terms of Service, and the Youtube Rentals Terms of Service."
Four very long legal agreements, three of which are for services I have no intention of using any time soon (if ever).
Screw that. I'm just not going to use the Android Market.
Mark Suster makes me want to write. What a fantastic blog.
Enough VC-loving. The reason I like this post is that it defends the mobile web. He was not trying to say apps or the mobile web will win. Instead he is showing that in order for one to live the other does not have to die.
Moving forward the big question is: which will thrive?
I actually think the opposite is true - I think that Facebook and Twitter are going to die eventually. That's because the need for these social networks was satisfied in an age where phones weren't directly connected to the Internet. One missing point from these discussions is that a social network already existed before these - with much stronger ties between people - a social network enabled by your contacts book. It didn't scale however because of a lack of software and because calls / SMS messages are expensive. If mobile carriers would pull their heads out of their ass and made SMS free, then Facebook and Twitter would become irrelevant.
Why? Because then people could send updates and links to other people, regardless of their device type, anywhere in the world. Then you could have evolved SMS managers that knew how to handle groups, deliver digests, take care of spam and so on (like email clients do). If you need a stronger indication that this is true - consider how nothing replaced email yet, no matter how many predictions of death went by ;)
Nice quote from Seth Godin linked in the article:
The problem with just about every prediction made by industry firms like Forrester (all the way back to 1985 when these firms said that the Commodore 64 was going to change the world–until the VCR interrupted to become the next big thing) is that they are based on sophisticated analysis of what’s in the rear-view mirror.