Sergey Brin: Native Apps And Web Apps Will Converge In The Not-Too-Distant Future
MG Siegler
May 19, 2010

Today at Google I/O during the Chrome press session, one question seemed to come up over and over again: why build a new Chrome Web Store when there is already an Android Marketplace? This is the latest extension of the thought that two different areas within Google (Android and Chrome) are increasingly competing with one another as platforms. But Google has a different take. For them, it’s about natural selection for now. And eventually, it will be about a natural convergence.

Google VP of Product Sundar Pichai says that by investing in both platforms, the company will be well-positioned no matter what happens in the future. “We’re trying not to pre-judge,” he notes indicating they’re keeping an open mind about things. While the two teams largely operate as separate units, there is some code share, such as in Android web browser, Pichai notes. And he expects that sharing to keep growing going forward.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin went further. “These models are likely to converge in the future. And not the too distant future,” Brin says.

He notes that during the keynote today, we got a glimpse at how the HTML model is coming along. Web apps are now able to go offline, and they can have richer graphics thanks to HTML5. “It’s getting similar to app frameworks,” he says. He also notes that there are benefits to using web apps versus native apps, such as the lack of installation, and certain aspects of security. ”It’s headed in a positive direction, but these are fairly recent developments,” Brin says.

Brin acknowledges that for now, the market is proving the need for native apps. The current generation of cellphones aren’t quite powerful enough, and HTML5 isn’t quite developed enough, he notes. Pichai also notes that screen sizes on mobile devices makes native apps more enticing as well.

But despite some of this cautious talk, the general vibe from Google’s top brass seems clear: the web will win in the end. Eventually, Android will morph into Chrome OS to create a unified web platform, if Google has its way.

Someone might want to tell Apple.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/megawattpr TyWright

    Sounds more fun than Apple's walled cult garden.

  • zapped

    sorry, still searching for the information in this article :(

  • Alex

    "Someone might want to tell Apple"… why? They're already leading the way (along with Google) in support for html5, css3 etc. If everybody were using Webkit browsers we could forget everything else and go full speed ahead on html5 development. Its the hordes of IE6, 7, 8 users that are holding us back, not Apple.

  • George

    Does anybody really like developing in JavaScript? Web apps won't truly come into their own until there is a better language and framework available. Browsers need to provide a richer, built-in framework for web apps to use instead of requiring each app to download and install its own (currently JavaScript frameworks). This is terrible for mobile. Why can't there be a standard browser run-time and framework like Silverlight or JavaFX built into all browsers so that we can build web apps that don't require primitive tools?

  • metricsman

    Spoken like a true zealot – "Those damned users are holding us back from doing cool stuff" – they just don't GET IT, do they? :)

  • brett1211

    Going to ramble a bit here:
    -Google Checkout: Maybe they've finally figured out how to make this a competitive product. see below.
    -Micropayments: could be a big step forward, especially for publishers and games. For example, ocassionally some one sends me a Nature or Ad Age article that I'd like to read but can't because I don't have a subscription. Even if they did accept micropayments, it's usually not worth my time to get out my credit card. So, I usually end up either badgering my friends to cut paste and send or I forget about it. If I could just go to the web app store to buy it in a click (assuming i've signed up for google check out), I would in a second. for this is the most interesting part, in my opinion.
    -Web apps: aside from micropayments, which would obviously be huge, done well, this could be a big benefit people building websites a number of ways. One interesting thing to think about though is that app search sucks in both the App Store and the Android Market place- what's it going to be like here? Page Rank works because web pages can vote on each other, the app stores have nothing comparable. If google can convince people to go here first, "download/bookmark," rank, and review web apps, their search will get that much better. As i'm writing this, I'm thinking that this is in a way a way for google to strike back at facebook's "like" button. Not as granular/good but it is a way for google to get individuals (as opposed to webmasters) to "rate the web."
    -Chrome and Google search: Obviously strengthened via the users and data collected. In addition to the user data, google has created yet another way for developers to format their applications exactly how google would like. see above.

    holla back. @brett1211

  • HereAndNow

    The potential to distribute applications (or propagating bug fixes & enhancements) instantaneously, to billions of user devices around the world, is pretty compelling.

    Once there is secure access to all of a device's resources (camera, accelerometer, filesystem, …) from the browser, it should be possible to build web apps that behave & perform like native apps.

    At that point, the concept of "owning" a device essentially disappears. You simply log in to ANY device & your personal "profile" is configured automatically.

  • Aubrey

    Boring.
    The user rarely knows what's best for him. He wants to much and thinks too little.

  • Aubrey

    Because those primitive tools use primitive amounts of battery. Let the tech catch up and then the frameworks will come.

  • HereAndNow

    JavaScript is, more or less, the "machine language" of the internet. You can program with it (I actually like it), but it is more convenient, if you use a higher level language & framework & compile to it.

    Google Web Toolkit (GWT) allows you to program in Java & then compile to highly optimized JavaScript.

  • HereAndNow

    I would like to see major websites start displaying a message like "This site requires a modern, HTML5 browser." & then offering a list of options to install (even Google Chrome Frame, for IE).

    If companies still need to use IE6 for their internal websites/applications, they can use it. However, they will need to use something else to access "external" websites.

    The cost of supporting IE6 AND the limiting of use of modern web technologies (HTML5, CSS3, …) is ridiculous.

  • Chromium Safari

    Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 is more of a walled-garden than iPhone is.

    Windows Phone 7 will only have one browser (based on IE7) that will not support HTML5, therefore will not support any of these new Google apps. Added to that, WP7 will still have the walled-garden restrictions, such as only being allowed to purchase apps from Microsoft's monopoly app store.

    iPhone's WebKit will support HTML5. Every major non-MS smartphone will support WebKit + HTML5. We can see where the smartphone market is headed.

  • analysisman

    I wouldn't call Alex a zealot – more an idealist, which aren't quite the same.

    But he is partially right, although companies like MS are as much to blame for sticking with their quasi-standards adhering browser engines – users are as much to blame for sticking with them too. But most users are ignorant of the adherence of a browser engine to a standard, so the blame mostly lies at the feet of the company making the browser.

    It just so happens that lately we've seen the adoption of Webkit by enough browser makers to give it a chance at becoming a standard, which is the point the Alex really as making – Apple already are leading the way with HTML5 and open web standards, in particularly by developing, using, and sharing Webkit and Canvas.

    Webkit was developed by Apple and is now used by Google and others as the main component of their web browsers.

    It started as K(rappy)HTML and was cleaned, fixed, extended (CS2&3) and rewritten totally (eg the javascript engine) by Apple, released in accordance with its open source license and is today still updated by Apple now with the support of other companies.

    If it were possible for Firefox to ditch Gecko for Webkit, then Webkit may win tomorrow. No one is going with Gecko, and as much as Firefox has brought IE usage numbers down in the consumer/residential market, hasn't made as significant a dent in the corporate and business world, and it missed the mobile market opportunity by getting in too late.

    Apple chose to use KHTML and build on open web tech, and has helped the rest of the market move in that direction, by for example – giving its competitors like Google a modern open standards compliant browser rendering engine for their browser.

    Apple could have done what MS did and develop its own browser engine, kept the source closed, and not pushed the web forward.

    But it believes in an open web as much as Google – if not more by deprecating Flash from its mobile web.

  • http://twitter.com/MatthewWhatley @MatthewWhatley

    nice shoes, sergey.

  • Pants

    They're talking about only having to develop one web app that works across all platforms so you don't get stuck starting from scratch for every new device and/or OS. This means that you wouldn't have to get Apple's tools, hardware or permission to develop an app that will work on an iPhone. The user, on whatever device, will eventually be able to do everything that you can do on a native app, through a more capable web browser and get rid of all the idiotic, platform specific app stores.

  • http://distractable.net/ Damon Oehlman

    Actually – strangely yes I do. There is a lot going for javascript and dynamic languages in general that often scares a lot of people. Once you discover (through trial and error mainly) how to structure a javascript application, you can start to see some real results.

    I do think the language does need to evolve further though to allow us to really get where Sergey is talking about though, but I have to say I think a future based on HTML5 + CSS + Javascript is going to be a lot more liberating than our disparate client-side approaches of the past.

    Just my two cents…

  • landmammal

    I agree. It works but isn't as powerful as Silverlight/WPF/Cocoa/Flex/JavaFx. If Objective-C and JavaScript win then we are back in 1985.

  • bluesky

    I'm pretty sure native and web app will become one. Web will be the dominant way to access things. Check out XBAP. Native Windows app running in the browser using Windows Presentation Foundation.

  • bluesky

    Native web application will go beyound Javascript. Javascript is basically a failure in rich native web application I think. It is a scripting language and it is not very powerful I think and very complicated and convoluted to use. Languages will be C#, Java and other full featured applications. Microsoft is doing this with Silverlight coded in C# and XBAP using the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). Trying to do everything with Javascript will take time and can't do much. Can you access a harddrive with Javascript. It needs huge and stable platform to support native web. Coding a few Javascript files are not going to do it. I think Google should work on the platform. The platform.

  • JoeDawg

    "We'll be well-positioned to…blah blah blah". In other words, we'll cut and dump on you in the future if you buy something that one of our crappy free "products" is loaded on, no matter how much time you've invested in it, and that's too bad for you. All the software schmoe cliches I've ever come across in Silicon Valley. They even used "convergence" to indicate their future-seeing powers.

  • tester

    Silverlight and WPF are already doing this… I still don't think coding in Javascript is cool.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tcparislemon MG Siegler

    keep reading.

  • stan

    Haha – well said! :)

  • DNA

    Fun to whom? The end-user couldn't care less about all this geek bunk. "Gimme something that works"

  • http://twitter.com/m0d_ulus @m0d_ulus

    I hate Javascript. jQuery, and all those frameworks are the most asinine pieces of **** that really only serve notice to the fact that most web "developers" don't know **** about programming. Just wait until your gigantic, unknowable JS libraries, that you downloaded from 9 different places on the internet, start clashing with each other, then you will really learn what "fun" is. Ever try to refactor a large JS app? Anyone ever get a code hint when writing in JS? How about a list of objects in a class? Wait, anyone ever get a defacto *class* in JS?? lol. **** Javascript.

    Seriously, lets pretend that those various imbeciles (S.J.) never really thought Javascript was even related to a real programming language, and lets move on with our lives, and into the future.

  • zapped

    Don't take it personally, it's not you it's google this time for a change ;-)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/reneeswifts reneeswifts

    And that's why Google had built their own Google App Store, right?

  • Dave P

    Just curious, but when the iPhone was first introduced, wasn't it going to be all web apps and no native apps? Everyone freaked out, Apple made an SDK, now we have native apps.
    What's changed to make web apps cool and native apps a thing of the past? Better web? Better tools? Better browsers?
    Just curious.

  • Bill

    Probably learn to read first – zapped

  • jesus christ

    Yes, you can access a hard drive with Javascript.

    Javascript is going to be huge, both client-side and server-side. It's already deployed on every browser worth using, world-wide. And there's a ton of activity at the moment with Javascript on the server-side (see Node, Express, Narwhal.)

    A lot of people still see Javascript as this crappy language you use to add image "rollovers" on your website or something. But it's actually a pretty cool language.
    http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.ht...

  • Brain D

    dude this is such a lame response…you sound so defensive. Let the app drive the framework you use…how many apps do you develop where you MUST use .Net or Java? Unless you're building budget wasting crap for the government then chances are you don't need it. It just really depends on the app. Stop crying about "web developers not knowing programing" and just worry about your own crappy apps your putting out there.

  • http://twitter.com/samianrosen @samianrosen

    Dennis Crowley at my brother (@drabsnore) had this conversation back in Aug 09!!!
    http://bit.ly/a4VMkN around 8min mark i think

  • http://twitter.com/Detrus @Detrus

    Google is working on NativeClient which runs native code at native speeds, like C++, C, etc.. in a secure sandbox. They demoed a Unity3D game running in NativeClient at I/O, no plugin download was necessary. With NativeClient using plugins, aka app frameworks, is like using jQuery.

    They're also working on Go, (golang.org) a new language with some interesting features. It's currently being used to replace C++ for some small Google projects but it's more web looking, has garbage collection, simplified syntax and compiles very quickly. Small programs compile as quickly as JIT compilation of JS.

    That's what Sergey is probably talking about. They'll continue to improve JS speeds in Chrome because they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket, and especially piss off the standards warriors, but ultimately their new technologies solve problems HTML5 doesn't begin to address.

  • Bruce

    But unlike Apple's it's not exclusive. Google does not restrict the apps to Chrome, nor do they make it the only way to run stuff inside Chrome.

  • Alex

    Thanks for that reasoned reply. Yeah, I wasn't saying the users were right or wrong – mostly they either don't know or are forced by the companies they work for to use a certain browser. It's not a matter of GET IT/ not… Just the reality of the situation.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/nusret1 yuregininsesi

    But unlike Apple's it's not exclusive. Google does not restrict the apps to Chrome, nor do they make it the only way to run stuff inside Chrome.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us