Complete Web Browsing On Your Cell Phone? Not Yet
The received wisdom in the mobile industry is that continued browser evolution is making handsets capable of delivering a "full Internet experience", like that on a broadband-connected PC.
I think that's over-stretching the capabilities. Yes, Apple's (AAPL) iPhone renders a lot of web pages beautifully, but it's still not supporting things like Adobe's (ADBE) Flash. And that's the absolute pinnacle of web-on-mobile.
When you move down to the next tier, you get options like Webkit-on-Series 60. Which is a lot better than a few years ago, and can do a decent job of many websites, but which gets seriously thrown off-course by some of the newer and flashier sites.
My E71 consistently crashes when I try to use my new favourite travel-booking website, Kayak - there's no way I'd trust it all the way through to a transaction. It's got plenty of other annoying niggles as well, such as the switching between multiple windows. Plus it's still dependent on a whole range of network-side issues (and maybe handset software or memory problems too), like click-to-see time, that make web surfing a lot less pleasant and immediate than on a PC.
It'll be interesting to see what Google (GOOG) does with Chrome on mobile. And yes, there's all sorts of widgety goodness and operatic performances that make the best of the small device.
But at the end of the day, they're all still "best efforts" approximations to the proper web, on a proper computer. I reckon Apple and a couple of others will start to trend asymptotically towards real "web" experience, but that will take a couple of years. As for that sort of performance to reach down to the midrange of handsets and beyond? I'll be surprised if we see a truly first-class browsing experience on a $50 handset (and its typical host network) before the middle of next decade.
Disclosure: None
Related Articles
|
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
This article has 16 comments:
- Sunil Jain
- 3 Comments
My Website
Sep 10 04:44 PM- g_skorich
- 4 Comments
Sep 10 04:46 PM- XamaX
- 8 Comments
Sep 10 05:55 PMNow I can do that while tanning at the beach and my experience has been nothing but smooth and wonderful, snappy and efficient!
Get a clue. Flash is anything but mobile, stating such a thing is spelling your ignorance. It's been rejected by Apple because it is power hungry, heavy and hard on a machine as powerful as the iPhone. And they don't make it any more powerful these days!
And, now that you're at it, grab the phone and yank the dudes behind that clumsy web site - you sound like all those clueless mindless erhm people that claimed the iPhone had difficulties in 3G when it was mostly the network going into saturation - I know this for a fact since I worked for Ericsson network planning division precisely planning a new 3G network.
- dig
- 23 Comments
Sep 10 09:22 PM- dig
- 23 Comments
Sep 10 09:23 PM- DeanB
- 22 Comments
My Website
Sep 11 02:56 AMNot only that, but in a previous post of mine I pointed the finger at network problems (ie not the phone) for the lacklustre reported 3G performance in the US, and yet I still get comments such as XamaX's.
Don't you realise that this almost religious over-reaction is counterproductive? I know people who specifically don't want one because of the uncool "enthusiast" connotations.
The fact is that many websites have Flash. Currently, the iPhone doesn't render them. Java is missing, too. Hence the UK Advertising Standards Authority recently banning one of Apple's ads for being misleading when it said "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
In terms of the perennial question of "Do people WANT the real PC Internet on a mobile device?", the answer is some do, some don't, for some sites, some of the time. In certain cases a mobile-specific site is convenient and more useable, but in other instances it's incredibly frustrating if you're trying to use a familiar feature and it's not there. The best sites (eg Google) offer you both an optimised version and the "real" PC one.
DB
- southbeach
- 23 Comments
Sep 11 07:34 AM- vassar
- 26 Comments
Sep 11 09:38 AMIf you want the best web experience on a 3 inch screen, get an iPhone or an iPod Touch.
If you want FLASH (or Silverlight), use your laptop. FLASH does not equate with 'proper web experience'. It is a slow resource hog even on a 'real' computer.
Bottom Line: Supporting proprietary formats on the Web is not where things are going. Before complaining about the iPhone, try rendering a web page on a Blackberry, WinMobile device or better yet, a Palm Treo!
- mollytjm
- 273 Comments
Sep 11 10:14 AMeventually the screen will be a 'holocast' and projected in front of the device. at that point we'll have a very real portable computer.
until then, the iphone blows everyone else out of the water, and is, as Bubley says, the 'best effort'... but it's not only the best effort...it's far above the others.
i love Apple products and own the stock, but i do think it would be more beneficial to Apple if those of us who know the products well, would just patiently explain why they are top rated and better, comparatively. PC magazine already says the new iPods are top rated and make the other players look clunky.
- brewer
- 388 Comments
Sep 11 10:20 AMYou have to understand that Mac users have been mistreated for years, and Microsoft has been laughing about it. Funny how things change, isn't it?
When someone tells you (or thousands tell you!) to just 'get an iPhone and stop whining' they may be trying to give you ADVICE, but you see it as flaming. It all depends on your pont of view.
After all, for decades, Mac users were told to 'just get a WinDOZE machine, they are everywhere, what is the problem' etc... they didn't listen. And it's such a great thing that SOME of us had the conviction to stand with a BETTER product even though it often seemed no one else cared enough to go against the flow. Because of that, you have a choice now.
- DeanB
- 22 Comments
My Website
Sep 11 11:40 AMYou completely misread that "I don't use an iPhone because I want Flash".
My post isn't about my personal device decisions. What I'm using personally is irrelevant to my analysis of the wider market.
I'm not a particular fan of any brand of handset or OS and I also don't give advice to other people on what devices to buy, nor do I recommend investments. And I certainly don't need advice from other anonymous people on what devices I should use personally - as I'm in the industry I'm quite aware of the options and their pros/cons.
What my clients pay me for is to look at the way the mobile industry will *most probably* develop, or sometimes other scenarios, or how they could influence them. My blog & the syndicated posts on SeekingAlpha are adhoc comments on the way I see certain trends developing - hence this one about mobile browsing.
I'm currently surrounded by about a dozen devices of various types, I switch between them regularly, and I have used an iPhone a fair bit (I even bought my father one as an Xmas present). Some of them are paid for by me, some of them are sent to me for evaluation - such as the E71 which I'm using as my main work email/web device at present. If O2 send me an iPhone, I'd probably use that more, and to be honest it's been ages since I used a BlackBerry, so ideally I'd play with one of those for a month or two as well.
- DeanB
- 22 Comments
My Website
Sep 11 12:07 PMIn other words in 5 years' time, *most* mobile users will still have either no, or sub-standard, web performance.
- KenC
- 137 Comments
Sep 11 06:52 PMI'm not sure whether the author knows the difference between JAVA and javascript. The iPhone browser allows JavaScript, but doesn't run JAVA. I haven't heard too many people complain about not having JAVA other than Sun Microsystems.
Further, WebKit on your S60 browser, is from Apple. Apple developed the rendering engine WebKit and gave it back to the open-source community, that's how Nokia can use it, as does Adobe for Adobe AIR, as does Google for Android and Chrome. And, there are literally a dozen other browsers or browser-based apps built on the frameworks of WebKit. This is the real story, the story of the rise of WebKit. A loose WebKit alliance between all the non-MS companies.
It's just funny to read the comments comparing Safari to S60 to Chrome, when they are all built on the same rendering engine. Sure there'll be some small differences in performance as Safari 4.0 uses SquirrelFish as its JavaScript engine, while Chrome uses V8 as its.
If the author wants to keep tabs on how the real internet is progressing into the mobile world, all he need do is go to:
webkit.org
And, you can read all about WebKit and the SurfinSafari Blog, and how WebKit was the first to pass all 100 of the Acid3 tests back in March. Of course, the Acid3 test was the acid test of meeting web standards. WebKit scored 100%. I believe Gecko which powers Mozilla scored 100% as well.
My recollection is that desktop MS IE 6 or 7, scored about a 12 of 100 on the Acid3 test. I just tested my Mobile Safari and got a score of 72. So, my Mobile Safari meets more web standards as defined by Acid3 than Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
I think history will show that Safari qualifies as the Real Internet, regardless of what the British advertising board thinks. If you read their statement, it has more to do with public expectations than published standards. Of course, since Flash is not installed by default, I really wonder what they are talking about.
- DeanB
- 22 Comments
My Website
Sep 11 07:10 PMYes, I take your point about standards, but there's a lot about the PC-oriented web which is based on de-facto rather than de-jure standards. There's a lot of websites with Flash, there's quite a lot of websites with Java, there's a lot of websites with questionable Javascript implementations (yes, I know the difference). PDF wasn't an open standard until a couple of months ago, either, yet most people have viewed it as "must have" for years.
Many websites are "long tail" ones that are unlikely to be bothered about how well they render on mobile for many years, if ever. Based on the numbers I'm seeing & predicting, mobile access will remain a minority or secondary consideration for many website developers, especially in areas like B2B. I wouldn't expect Boeing's webmaster to be too worried about someone downloading 747 specs to a mobile phone, for example.
The market evolution will be defined more by "public expectations than published standards", to use your terms. If a given customer's favourite website doesn't work on a phone, when it does on a PC, it's unlikely to be poor standards compliance that gets blamed.
It's also worth bearing in mind the Flash Lite is already supported on a lot of phones, notably most of the current higher-end Nokia devices, plus it's being blended with Java by SonyEricsson. I certainly don't think Flash is the be-all and end-all of the mobile web, but I don't think it's going to suddenly evaporate either.
- KenC
- 137 Comments
Sep 12 07:45 PMThere's no doubt that ubiquity often drives standards adoption, much like language. What's slang today, is in Webster's tomorrow. I think the writing was on the wall for PDFs that it would become an adopted standard sooner or later. As for Flash, the jury is still out.
What I think you are missing is the movement, outside of MS, towards web standards. That's why I referenced a loose alliance of WebKit-based browsers and apps. There's alot of momentum on that side of the ball, and even MS has been forced to respond.
I think it's not a given that something like Flash will become a standard. In fact, you've got large players like Google moving away from Flash and re-encoding all their Youtube videos in standards-compliant H.264.
- Jeff In Dallas
- 1 Comment
Oct 05 11:39 PMAnd as a Web User I don't care if Flash is a formal web standard. I expect my device to handle it. No Flash is a deal breaker for me for any web browsing device. No Flash, No Thanks. I'll browse elsewhere and get the full experience.
More by Dean Bubley