Last night, I was thwarted from adding a show to my iPad because I was nearly out of space:
I started deleting large, rarely-used apps (goodbye for now, GarageBand!), and ultimately trimmed the playlist of songs that syncs with the iPad. But as I looked through my per-app usage, this caught my eye:
That’s right: Facebook, a network-based application (one that is typically accessed as a web page) is using nearly half a gigabyte for documents.
No. No you don’t. I deleted Facebook and reinstalled from the App Store to reclaim the space. But then I thought, what the hell is it doing with all that space?
Fortunately, I still had Facebook on my iPhone, where it’s only burning a little over 100 MB. I took a look with iExplorer, and dumped Facebook to my Mac:
So look at that: 12 MB for the app, over 100 MB of
Caches, nearly all of it in
FBURLCache. Bad enough that it burns a seemingly unlimited amount of space, but let’s flip back to iExplorer and look at the file dates:
Yep, the oldest files in this cache are three months old. What are the odds that I’m going to want any of those files, and even if I do, that I’m going to get any benefit from caching them locally?
It gets better. After poking around the 1.5 MB
cacheinfo.plist index file and its 6,000 entries, I dug into one of the cache files with HexEdit, which immediately revealed it as a simple
.plist. Off to the Property List Editor we go!
So, great… for a “Recommend” button on some web page I accessed back in January, Facebook has cached the entire
NSHTTPURLResponse. 1,700 bytes of cache for a 339-byte GIF. And apparently it’s done this for every element of every web page I’ve viewed with the Facebook app.
Unbelievable. I rarely view a web page more than once through the FB app, and it’s highly doubtful anyone is getting more benefit from caching these files to be worth the space they’re consuming. It seems there may be a 3-month roll-off (or maybe that’s when I last reinstalled the app?), but that’s a uselessly long period: it’s rare you can roll back to posts that old on Facebook. And I’m left to assume that there’s no limit to the size this cache is allowed to grow to. At over 400 MB, the cache on my iPad was nearly the size of two standard-def TV shows… something that would do me a lot more good than caches of links I’ll never view again.
Should there be an option to turn the cache off, or at least to cap its size or or set its expiration date? Of course there should. But given that this app is the same one that giddily uploaded all the entries in my contacts list years ago, I probably shouldn’t expect better.
- Mozilla is making a new push into mobile
- The default standard for web video has become H.264
<video>for mobile and Flash for the desktop
- Adobe is abandoning Flash for mobile
Taken together, these three points mean that continuing to reject H.264
<video> (and implicitly depend on Flash to support the video content that actually exists in the wild) might well leave mobile Firefox unable to play any meaningful amount of video at all. And certainly somebody somewhere must have realized that H.264 is the most popular encoding format within Flash movies, meaning that Mozilla’s attempt to push developers into other codecs simply wasn’t working.
<video> is a cure-all; Streaming Media’s Jan Ozer makes the case that it’s not there, and probably never will be, at least not for non-trivial uses.
But as Streaming Media’s Troy Dreier points out in today’s article, at least this will rid us of the distraction of WebM: “This move drives a major nail in the WebM coffin, making WebM only slightly more relevant than Ogg Theora.”
Google fans among my Tweeps and +1’ers argue that WebM only failed because Google didn’t push it hard enough, but I think they’re wrong: WebM was always a dumb idea, one whose only advantage was political correctness among a holier-than-thou group of developers, few of whom had particularly deep knowledge of digital media beyond patent and licensing politics. Looking back at my earlier anti-WebM screed, my only regret is not slamming it even harder than I did.
Guess it’s just as well that I never created an
webm category on the blog… turns out I wouldn’t ever need it.
- In economics, rent-seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.
- —Rent-seeking, from Wikipedia
Most of my tweets today have been about in-app purchase, first with the news of Sony’s Reader app being rejected on the basis of its purchase model, and then Apple’s clarification / de facto policy change stating that apps that offer user-purchasable content must offer Apple in-app purchase in addition to whatever other purchase methods might be available.
Matt Ingram at GigaOM nearly nails the issue in a section header:
The Landlord Will Get His Share
What Apple seeks to collect is rent, specifically monopoly rent, the ability to extract excess payments not as a consequence of a mutually-beneficial trade, but because it owns the damn store and it sets the damn rules.
I have long argued that in-app purchase can be a pretty raw deal for developers. Slide 50 from my Voices That Matter (Seattle 2010) talk, In-App Purchase: Best/Worst Thing Ever puts this in perspective:
|App Store||In-App Purchase|
|Local Purchase Storage||√|
To clarify what I mean by each of these:
- Product Hosting: Apps are hosted on Apple’s servers. In-App Purchases go on your server (unless they’re bundled with the app and simply unlocked)
- Audit Trail: The audit trail for an app purchase is entirely verifiable through Apple. With In-App Purchases, the developer gets a digital receipt that he or she needs to log on their own server, after validating it against an Apple webservice.
- Purchase UI: For apps, the description, screenshots, user ratings, pricing, and purchase process are all handled by iTunes or the iOS App Store. For I-AP, the developer needs to create a UI for all of this, beyond a simple “are you sure” alert provided by Store Kit once a purchase is initiated.
- Purchase Restoration: Users can easily re-download their old apps to a new device for free with iTunes or the App Store, once they’ve logged back into their iTunes account. For In-App Purchases, developers are expected to provide restoration of “durable” and “subscription” products, but Store Kit’s
-[SKPaymentQueue restoreCompletedTransactions]method only restores the former. There is no programmatic way to discover old subscription purchases on a new device. There’s also no way to get an identifier for the iTunes account, so you don’t even have anything to associate with the subscription purchase on your own server.
- Local Purchase Storage: iOS is responsible for storing the apps on the device’s file system. The developer is responsible for storing in-app purchases, ideally in a form that will survive crashes, wipes and restores, etc.
If you sell a $10 subscription, you do almost all the work, and yet Apple still feels it is entitled to a $3 cut for doing little more than running a credit-card swipe. Obviously, I don’t think they earn it.
If Apple’s now going to force the issue, it’s truly a sad and ugly moment for them and for all of us. How far does this concept go, after all? Consider websites that have premiere memberships, like ESPN.com or Crunchyroll. Both of them have dedicated iOS apps, since the full functionality of their Flash-heavy sites don’t work in Mobile Safari. Is Apple going to insist that these memberships be made available for purchase by I-AP as well? Or will users not be able to use iOS devices to access the online content they’ve paid for? How is that good for the platform?
It’s enough to make you hope that content providers switch to an ad-supported model and let Google make all the money. That would be just desserts, with a cherry on top.
“Client is looking for someone who has developed min. of 1 iPhone/iPad app. It must be in the App Store no exceptions. If the iPhone app is a game, the client is not interested in seeing them.” OK, whatever… I’ll accept that a game isn’t necessarily a useful prerequisite. But then this e-mail went on: “The client is also not interested in someone who comes from a web background or any other unrelated background and decided to start developing iPhone Apps.”
Wow. OK, what the hell happened there? Surely there’s a story behind that, one that probably involved screaming, tears, and a fair amount of wasted money. But that’s not what I’m interested in today.
What surprised me about this was the open contempt for web developers, at least those who have tried switching over to iOS development. While I don’t think we’re going to see many of these “web developer need not apply” posts, I’m still amazed to have seen one at all.
Because really, for the last ten years or so, it’s all been about the web. Most of the technological innovation in the last decade arrived in the confines of the browser window, and we have been promised a number of times that everything would eventually move onto the web (or, in a recent twist, into the cloud).
But this hasn’t fully panned out, has it? iOS has been a strong pull in the other direction, and not because Apple wanted it that way. When the iPhone was introduced and the development community given webapps as the only third-party development platform, the community reaction was to jailbreak the device and reverse-engineer iPhone 1.0’s APIs.
And as people have come over, they’ve discovered that things are different here. While the 90’s saw many desktop developers move to the web, the 10’s are seeing a significant reverse migration. In the forums for our iPhone book, Bill and I found the most consistently flustered readers were the transplanted web developers (and to a lesser degree, the Flash designers and developers).
Part of this was language issues. Like all the early iPhone books, we had the “we assume you have some exposure to a C-based curly-brace language” proviso in the front. Unfailingly, what tripped people up was the lurking pointer issues that Objective-C makes no attempt to hide.
EXC_BAD_ACCESS is exactly what it says it is: an attempt to access a location in memory you have no right to touch, and almost always the result of following a busted pointer (which in turn often comes from an object over-release). But if you don’t know what a pointer is, this might as well be in Greek.
And let’s think about languages for a minute. There has been a lot of innovation around the web programming languages. Ruby and Python have (mercifully) replaced Perl and PHP in a lot of the conventional wisdom about web programming languages, while the Java Virtual Machine provides a hothouse for new language experimentation, with Clojure and Scala picking gaining some very passionate adherents.
And yet, none of these seem to have penetrated desktop or device programming to any significant degree. If the code is user-local, then it’s almost certainly running in some curly-brace language that’s not far from C. On iOS, Obj-C/C/C++ is the only provided and only practical choice. On Mac, Ruby and Python bindings to Cocoa were provided in Leopard, but templates for projects using these languages no longer appear in XCode’s “New Project” dialog in Snow Leopard. And while I don’t know Windows, it does seem like Visual Basic has finally died off, replaced by C#, which seems like C++ with the pointers taken out (i.e., Java with a somewhat different syntax).
So what’s the difference? It seems to me like the kinds of tasks relevant to each kind of programming is more different than is generally acknowledged. In 2005’s Beyond Java, Bruce Tate argued that a primary task of web development was mostly about doing the same thing over and over again: connecting a database to a web page. You can snip at specifics, but he’s got a point: you say “putting an item in the user’s cart”, I say “writing a row to the orders table”.
If you buy this, then you can see how web developers would flock to new languages that make their common tasks easier — iterating over collections of fairly rich objects in novel and interesting ways has lots of payoff for parsing tree structures, order histories, object dependencies and so on.
But how much do these techniques help you set up a 3D scene graph, or perform signal processing on audio data captured from the mic? The things that make Scala and Ruby so pleasant for web developers may not make much of a difference in an iOS development scenario.
The opposite is also true, of course. I’m thrilled by the appearance of the Accelerate framework in iOS 4, and Core MIDI in 4.2… but if I were writing a webapp, a hardware-accelerated Fast Fourier Transform function likely wouldn’t do me a lot of good.
I’m surprised how much math I do when I’m programming for the device. And not just for signal processing. Road Tip involved an insane amount of trigonometry, as do a lot of excursions into Core Animation.
The different needs of the different platforms create different programmers. Here’s a simple test: which have you used more in the last year: regular expressions, or trigenometry? If it’s the former, you’re probably a web developer; the latter, device or desktop. (If you’ve used neither, you’re a newbie, and if you’ve used both, then you’re doing something cool that I probably would like to know about).
Computer Science started as a branch of mathematics… that’s the whole “compute” part of it after all. But times change; a CS grad today may well never need to use a natural logarithm in his or her work. Somebody — possibly Brenda Laurel in Computers as Theatre (though I couldn’t find it in there) — noted that the French word for computer, ordinateur, is a more accurate name today, being derived from root word for “organize” rather than “compute”.
Another point I’d like to make about webapps is that they’ve sort of dominated thinking about our field for the last few years. The kind of people you see writing for O’Reilly Radar are almost always thinking from a network point of view, and you see a lot of people take the position that devices are useful only as a means of getting to the network. Steve Ballmer said this a year ago:
Let’s face it, the Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications — they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone.
Obviously I disagree, but I bring it up not for easy potshots but to bolster my claim that there’s a lot of thinking out there that it’s all about the network, and only about the network.
And when you consider a speaker’s biases regarding the network versus devices operating independently, you can notice some other interesting biases. To wit: I’ve noticed enthusiasm for open-source software is significantly correlated with working on webapps. The most passionate OSS advocates I know — the ones who literally say that all software that matters will and must eventually go open-source (yes, I once sat next to someone who said exactly that) — are webapp developers. Device and desktop developers tend to have more of nuanced view of OSS… for me, it’s a mix of “I can take it or leave it”, and “what have you done for me lately?” And for non-programmers, OSS is more or less irrelevant, which is probably a bad sign, since OSS’ arrival was heralded by big talk of transparency and quality (because so many eyes would be on the code), yet there’s no sense that end-users go out of their way to use OSS for any of these reasons, meaning they either don’t matter or aren’t true.
It makes sense that webapp developers would be eager to embrace OSS: it’s not their ox that’s being gored. Since webapps generally provide a service, not a product, it’s convenient to use OSS to deliver that service. Webapp developers can loudly proclaim the merits of giving away your stuff for free, because they’re not put in the position of having to do so. It’s not like you can go to code.google.com and check out the source to AdWords, since no license used by Google requires them to make it available. Desktop and device developers may well be less sanguine about the prospect, as they generally deliver a software product, not a service, and thus don’t generally have a straightforward means of reconciling open source and getting paid for their work. Some of the OSS advocates draw on webapp-ish counter-arguments — “sell ads!”, “sell t-shirts!”, “monetize your reputation” (whatever the hell that means) — but it’s hard to see a strategy that really works. Java creator James Gosling nails it:
One of the key pieces of the linux ideology that has been a huge part of the problem is the focus on “free”. In extreme corners of the community, software developers are supposed to be feeding themselves by doing day jobs, and writing software at night. Often, employers sponsor open-source work, but it’s not enough and sometimes has a conflict-of-interest. In the enterprise world, there is an economic model: service and support. On the desktop side, there is no similar economic model: desktop software is a labor of love.
A lot of the true believers disagree with him in the comments. Then again, in searching the 51 followups, I don’t see any of the gainsayers beginning their post with “I am a desktop developer, and…”
So I think it’s going to be interesting to see how consensus and common wisdom industry changes in the next few years, as more developers move completely out of webapps and onto the device, the desktop, and whatever we’re going to call the things in between (like the iPad). That the open source zealots need to take a hint about their precarious relevance is only the tip of the iceberg. There’s lots more in play now.
My latest contract project has me doing a bunch of custom work with a
UIWebView: we have XHTML content that we want to render in our app, but with some fairly extensive changes to its presentation, such as paginating the content like a book, and intercepting taps on links. Given the option of using and customizing the built-in WebKit rendering, versus parsing the XHTML myself, laying it out, etc., the choice was a no-brainer.
The trick, then, is in how to extend and customize the functionality. As a long-time curly-brace application developer, my natural instinct is to impose control from the Cocoa side, perhaps by subclassing UIWebView to achieve custom behavior (although this is specifically discouraged by the documentation), tying in delegates where possible, perhaps even employing some render hackery (like using an offscreen UIWebView and then blitting its pixels into some visible view). But this really isn’t the right way to do it: for starters, it still gives you no access to the DOM, which is where nearly all the value of your HTML content is.
NSString. You can easily try it out on a
UIWebView in your own application like so:
textContent, and returning one big
NSString. Or collect all the links with
document.elementsByTagName('a') and index them in Cocoa.
.js file), so there is often little recourse but to jam
alert() calls into your code just to see how far the interpreter gets before quietly dying. That said, iOS Safari behaves very much like its desktop equivalent, so it is possible to do some amount of development and debugging in desktop Safari’s developer mode, or the WebKit nightly build, before switching back to the UIWebView. That said, I only do this for extreme cases of debugging — I wouldn’t want to develop a bunch of new code against WebKit nightly only to find it doesn’t work the same way on the production version of iOS.
Anyone with a browser knows how rich web applications can be, and so you implicitly know that anything you can do in Safari can also be done inside a
UIWebView. Sometimes it makes sense to do exactly that.