imho this is an article whose major analytic focus is "skewed" by an indiscriminate lumping into the category "apps" of very different types of "applications."
Applications that only "consume" content are one "beast," and within that category we need to break-out those that do require current internet connection vs. those who do not. Note that the "content consumed" can be very simple, as in basic text files, or viewing .jpg files, or very complex: as in viewing a database or a spreadsheet, or a highly formatted document.
Applications that allow "content creation" are another: and here we need to distinguish "trivial" applications such as some little one-font, one-color, one font size, text editor, or some simple etch-a-sketch drawing program that lets you create a simple drawing, etc.
Content creation applications that require intensive data-entry, such as spreadsheets, or, on the visual level, are dependent on very complex large-sized code-bases, like PhotoShop, are never going to be html5 "apps."
Applications that essentially put "spin" on existing web-content, like Readability: or allow you to "decorate with markup or notes" content like .PDF files: another category.
One-size never fitted all, and never will. HTML5 offers a wonderful palette for certain types of applications.
Yes, you can make the argument that HTML5 + JavaScript + some form of secure access to either local or "cloud" storage does give you a complete IDE of sorts: and that's very cool, but it will never replace complex heavy-duty applications like Excel or PhotoShop.
The other issues salient here that cut across boundaries have been mentioned already by other commentors: access to local storage, and requirement of being connected to the internet.
thanks, Bill
Discussion on:
Message 9 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
