Technology Review - Published By MIT
Technology Review  in English | en Español | auf Deutsch | in Italiano | 中文 | in India
Advertisement

Gmail Sidesteps the App Store

The technology behind the new Gmail could challenge Apple's control over third-party applications.

By Kate Greene

Monday, April 13, 2009
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Last week, Google announced an upgrade to its Web-based Gmail service for users of the iPhone and Android-powered devices. The new service has an easier-to-use interface, loads and searches e-mails faster, and has the ability to check e-mails even without access to a wireless signal.

App and away: A screenshot of the new mobile version of Gmail.
Credit: Google

More significant than the interface, however, is the underlying technology that enables it. Google took advantage of features of the browsers running on both platforms to create a Web application that looks and feels like one that has been downloaded onto the device. Representatives from Google claim that this is just the beginning. The company hopes that the new mobile Gmail will kick-start a trend in mobile Web apps with developers using the Internet to build and deploy more powerful applications.

According to some analysts, this approach to mobile development could have large implications for the way that developers distribute their software and the way that people buy it. It's even possible that more-powerful mobile Web apps could undercut some of the business of Apple's App Store, says Chetan Sharma, an analyst who runs his own consulting firm in Issaquah, WA.

"From the user's point of view, one of the problems with the App Store is discovery of content and apps," says Sharma. "It could be easier to discover mobile software living outside the App Store using a browser." The user won't care whether the app is running out of a browser or is running directly on the phone, Sharma says, "as long as you get the same sort of experience." A developer also has much more control over the distribution of the software, and she can keep the revenue it generates instead of splitting it with a third-party distributor like Apple.

Story continues below


More powerful mobile Web apps won't become widespread overnight, though. Google is leveraging Web browser capabilities that exist on a relatively small number of devices: the iPhone, the iPod Touch, and the current (and forthcoming) Android phones. These devices run browsers based on the open-source Webkit code base, which has already implemented features required under the forthcoming Web programming standard HTML 5.

These features include a graphics tool called Canvas, "persistent storage," and an "application cache," explains Shyam Sheth, product manager on Google's mobile team. Canvas is something of an alternative to the popular Adobe Flash software that's commonly used to create graphics and animation on the Web. Persistent storage provides a way for data, originally on a remote server (such as Google's e-mail servers), to be stored locally, on the device. The HTML 5 application cache keeps important information about an application on the device that allows it to open quickly, as if it were running directly on the hardware instead of remotely. The iPhone version of Gmail uses only HTML 5, whereas Android uses a combination of HTML 5 and Gears (a Google software add-on that enables its Web apps to run offline).

Tags

App Engine app store Apple gmail Google HTML 5 iPhone Web apps web browser

Related Articles

Comments
  • [no subject]
    This article is absolutely ridiculous.  It acts like Google has done something to avoid the control of Apple.

    This was Apple's original vision.  They wanted people to just build web apps for the iPhone.  They are overjoyed at this as it is proof of what they were saying from the beginning; it is possible to build a rich dynamic app using just safari on the iPhone.

    The article then goes on to act like this web app will work on any mobile device, which is a patent lie.  Only webkit-based Android and the iPhone have the technology.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cowsandmilk
    04/13/2009
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re:
      Hi cowsandmilk, I agree that it was Apple's original vision to have developers build Web apps for the iPhone, but in opening the App Store, it showed that it was also interested in an alternative business model for iPhone apps, one in which it controlled the distribution of and profited directly from the popularity of downloadable applications.

      Your claim that the article acts like this web app will work on any mobile device is utterly unfounded.

      From the article: "More powerful mobile Web apps won't become widespread overnight, though. Google is leveraging Web browser capabilities that exist on a relatively small number of devices: the iPhone, the iPod Touch, and the current (and forthcoming) Android phones. These devices run browsers based on the open-source Webkit code base..."
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kate Greene
      04/13/2009
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • The important point everyone misses
        As mentioned previously Apple first started pushing this approach with moderate success. It is the developers which insisted on an SDK. The thing everyone got, which finally made the app store such a huge success, was a gateway from a known and trusted commerce to the client. By using iTunes we (includes me) finally could feel comfortable buying apps as though they were songs. I never ask what the band Coldplay will do with my credit card numbers of personal data because I am buying from Apple not Coldplay. In the app environment there are equivalents but not nearly as well known by the public as iTunes and it's 6 Billion downloads. That is where the true story is. In fact these web apps will only succeed if 1) they are free or 2) they are supported by ads. OR MAYBE we buy them through the appstore and access them through the web. This way the credit card buying stuff is done through a trusted third party, Apple, and the deployment vehicle is the choice of the developer.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        davemtl
        04/13/2009
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
      • Re:
        Good correction.  I recommend that any article about Apple be vetted by someone in your organization who is an Apple fanboy.  This would help avoid embarrassing articles like this in the future.

        Clearly the author had no idea that Apple had promoted just such applications for the first year or so of the iphone.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        pithier
        04/15/2009
        Posts:1
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
    • Re: Web Apps
      In fact our company (PlayScreen, formerly MyNuMo) had a collection of advanced web apps for the iPhone ... some of which (according to Apple) were the most popular web apps (games etc.) on the iPhone:

      http://www.playscreen.com/iphone/fun4iphone.htm

      You can play these on Safari or Firefox.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      William_Volk
      04/16/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Market
    This is an interesting article about technology, platforms, applications, and content delivery.  But it is very short on any market assessment or critical analysis.

    It is true that Apple's iPhone was initially released with web APIs and they supported web-based development from third parties.  In many instances (CNN, FoxNews, Wunderground, etc.) mobile platform were created by large content providers.  The same will probably be true for the Google OS as well.

    However, native APIs that can take full advantage of device hardware have proven to be much more attractive to developer than web-based APIs.  Richer content can be created and manipulated by the user versus web-based APIs.  In addition, surfing the web is a cell phone convenience, and not superior to surfing on a computer which can provide a higher fidelity experience to the user.  It is a convenience.

    When Apple released the SDK for the iPhone and simultaneously released a content deliver channel for the iPhone (iTunes App Store), they accommodated to the needs of the customer.  The customer wants a boutique-like shopping experience (as can be seen with the Amazon web site and iTunes music store), they want tight integration so that the experience is tight, seamless and fluid.  They also want an easy and standardized way to pay for content (as can be seen also at Amazon with 1-click and of Apple's online storefronts).  With an iPhone you can connect to the App Store, search for content, read reviews and see ratings, make a decision, and then quickly pay for the content and have it delivered to your phone by only typing your iTunes account password.  This is a very convenient user experience.

    It is much more difficult to log onto a web site with a mobile device, enter your credit card number, personal billing information, and click through a few windows to pay for content.  Count the amount of clicks and characters you have to type to purchase software online versus purchasing it from an iPhone.  There are dramatically fewer steps on the iPhone, and that makes it easier for customers to purchase products.  Again, it's about the user experience.  This is where the Google OS diverges.  The OS works great but once you leave the OS, the user experience can very greatly.

    In addition, the iTunes App store is a marketing channel.  You can put up any web page and embed a link to the iTunes store which brings the user to the product where they can purchase it quickly.  The store also contains external links to developer's web sites.  It's a two-way marketing channel, and one of those channels is provided by Apple.  Support and maintenance of the channel, which can reach millions of users, costs only 30% of an application's sales.  In many cases developers spend in excess of 30% the cost of the product to market it without a guarantee that it will sell.  30% is a large margin for marketing, but the iTunes App store provides more than just marketing.  It's an interactive feedback loop for developers.

    I also do not think that Google's platform will be as successful as it's touted to be.  We have yet to see significant Linux desktop adoption and that was touted to dethrone Microsoft.  Linux does well in server environments or other embedded applications, but it does not deliver a seamless user experience.  Google will experience the same symptoms because it is allowing developers more freedom to create unique user experiences.  Like in the early days of Windows and more commonly in Linux, the lack of consistence and control creates user fatigue and they become disinterested in the platform.  Handheld manufacturers will also fragment the market further by writing custom code for their handsets that deviate away from any standard-setting Google may try to impose at a later date.

    When you allow multiple parties to do whatever they want with something, they will all try to make it unique from the next guy.  In some cases it will be spectacular.  In other cases it will be an abysmal mess.  In all cases, it will be just okay (think about a bell curve distribution).

    It is for the reasons listed above that Google's phone OS many not be as successful as you've described above.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lsdfreak
    04/13/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
Reply

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos
Latest Videos
The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush

Top Stories Of The Day

Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement

RSS Feeds

xml icon TR Top Stories
xml icon TR Editors' Blog
xml icon TR Video Blog
xml icon TR Video
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.