The death of the URL

Re:The death of the URL by pohl on Monday November 16, 2009 @06:19PM (#945561)

The inclusion of the App Store as an exhibit doesn't seem relevant. URLs are artifacts of the web. The App Store is for the purchase of native applications. Yes, it's not an open platform, but things have been this way in the mobile space for a long time, and it has nothing to do with the web or URLs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_Runtime_Environment_for_...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by olefoo on Monday November 16, 2009 @08:23PM (#945752)

Actually, I really wish Apple would pull their head out on this one; if I'm browsing on a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed, that doesn't mean I don't want to see the information about the app, and it does mean I might interested in buying it later. As it is, it's not uncommon of me to click on a link, expecting to be directed to a page about an app, and being told that I don't have iTunes installed (duh! it's Linux).

I think apple costs app developers sales every time they fail to show people information they asked for and instead give idiot messages about not having the proper software to view a link.

I like the iphone a lot, but keeping me happy with it involves removing some of the obstacles that make it compare poorly with Droid (and hopefully many other phones in the near future). For instance, I would like to run an interpreter on my phone...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by factoryjoe on Monday November 16, 2009 @07:28PM (#945656)

I would disagree. Just because the App Store is designed to make it easier to get apps onto the phone, nothing prevents these apps from being accessible by URLs. In fact, many iPhone-friendly apps are available as web apps that simply look and behave like native apps — and the distinction between native and web is becoming evermore so slight.

I think that there is a role for App Stores in the future, but I think that the healthiest future would be comprised of hybrid app stores that give you access to the best web and native apps — without having to distinguish. Thus you could go through the app store if you want the exposure, or you could go directly to the web app's URL if you knew it.

Seems simple enough to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by pohl on Monday November 16, 2009 @08:27PM (#945758)

...nothing prevents these apps from being accessible by URLs.

That's true. In fact, they already are:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/super-monkey-ball/id281966695...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by factoryjoe on Monday November 16, 2009 @09:02PM (#945814)

Except that I can't actually access the app from that URL, so I wouldn't consider that equivalent.

Rich apps like Google Wave, however, can be accessed directly in the browser, as can apps like Gmail and Google Latitude. It's unfortunate that the majority of these apps are developed by Google, but frameworks like iUI and jqTouch bring this kind of functionality to the broader web.

I think it's silly to suggest that Apple's app links that redirect to iTunes are somehow equivalent or equally meaningful as fully functioning applications.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by pohl on Monday November 16, 2009 @09:08PM (#945821)

I understand what you're saying, but it strikes me as a very tortured and flimsy excuse for the App Store's presence in the article.

By your reasoning, there's no URL for GIMP either. Does that make it part of the URL's death knell? (I wouldn't consider a URL to an Debian repository to be much different than a URL to an App Store, after all...it doesn't take me to the program, but it will allow me to configure a special piece of software to obtain & install the program for me.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by Raphael on Monday November 16, 2009 @08:50PM (#945800)

That page doesn't show Super Monkey Ball; it's a prompt to download iTunes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by pohl on Monday November 16, 2009 @08:57PM (#945809)

True, and all of the flash content on the web shows me a prompt to install a plugin, and therefore can't be referenced by URL either.

Meanwhile, Flash gets no mention in the article?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by fauigerzigerk on Tuesday November 17, 2009 @06:27AM (#946239)

That's because everyone can publish Flash. No middlemen, gatekeepers or censors required.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by factoryjoe on Tuesday November 17, 2009 @08:08PM (#947574)

For the most part you need to have purchased the right kind of tools to create Flash software, or acquired a license to the Flash server technology.

As well, to the best of my knowledge, no one besides Adobe can change the underlying Flash spec, so I would completely disagree with your assertion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of the URL by fauigerzigerk on Wednesday November 18, 2009 @02:50PM (#948967)

You disagree with my assertion that everyone can publish Flash apps because you cannot change the Flash spec and you have to pay for Adobe's tools if you choose to use them? I don't get your logic.

Even if I had to pay Adobe to create or publish Flash apps, which is not the case, they wouldn't be able to censor me. Big difference for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]