HTML5 is no silver bullet

Those touting HTML5 as a silver bullet, solving the fragmentation problems of developing native mobile applications, are guilty of misleading companies already confused by the plethora of mobile operating systems and handsets.

This is the general agreement among local mobile and wireless technology players in the wake of the debate on native applications versus HTML5, as enterprises weigh the pros and cons of each platform before diving into the mobile world.

Wilter du Toit, CEO of Virtual Mobile Technologies, says the bulk of mobile applications are native apps. “In other words, they are built specifically for mobile operating systems, for instance Apple's iOS or Google's Android.

“The primary benefit is that the apps get to tap into the phone's capabilities such as location, accelerometer, microphone, speakers, etc. Some nifty applications have been built and smartphone users have got used to slick interfaces, ease of use, advanced features and integration with their mobile device,” Du Toit explains.

According to Ryan Smit, digital lifestyle research manager at BMI-TechKnowledge, HTML5 offers many of the same features of native applications, but ultimately not as much functionality due to the lack of direct integration into the operating system.

network.

WWW Strategy MD Steven Ambrose concurs, saying HTML5 cannot offer the same experience as a dedicated app on a high-end smartphone. “The technology is still fragmented, poorly understood and the browser market is as fragmented and inconsistent.”

He is also of the view that browsers are not all consistent in their handling of HTML5, and capabilities vary considerably across platform versions and browsers. “This makes the applications running in the browser inconsistent and difficult to manage.”

Du Toit points out that in the mobile world, HTML5 promises to allow developers to build Web apps that are as feature-rich as their native application counterparts. “Many are heralding this as the solution to operating system and device fragmentation in the mobile world. Build once and deploy everywhere.”

Unfortunately, this is not going to be the case, for three main reasons, he argues. “Firstly, HTML5 offers nowhere near the user experience high-end smartphone users are used to and demand.

“And second, it is incredibly naive to think that the mobile Web world is not also very fragmented. Finally, on the opposite end of the spectrum, some people are never ever going to upgrade from a feature phone, whether from personal preference or for economic reasons.”

He argues that the mobile Web was originally intended to display, discover and read content, and it still does that incredibly well, with the added benefit nowadays that content can also be easily shared.

“For most other uses, however, native applications still offer the most optimised, high-end version with the best user experience of the service. In addition, it will still be a number of years before handsets fully compatible with HTML5 enter the market in any significant numbers,” Du Toit contends.

Smit agrees, saying native applications are more feature-rich, run faster, usually match the aesthetics of the phone's operating system more closely, have an established platform to monetise the applications more easily, and allow applications to be easily found through application markets.

On the other hand, he says the advantages of HTML5 apps are that they work across different operating systems. “They are based on a well-known Web language in HTML, they can adapt to different screen sizes varying from feature phones to full-scale desktop screens, and they avoid having to pay a cut of their subscription fees to app stores.”

He also believes that though HTML5 is likely to play a significant role in terms of the mobile experience, it will never surpass native apps in all categories of applications.

“One category where HTML5 will be successful is in the news and publishing space, as they require their content to be accessible through all platforms, with a consistent look and feel.

“Content providers are also more likely to have subscription fees than other applications, and thus have more of an incentive to avoid paying up to 30% of those fees over to an application store. Many of these content providers often have well-known Web addresses, and thus are not as dependant on application stores to create consumer awareness.”

Smit concludes that HTML5 is less of a direct competitor to applications as it is an evolution of the mobile Web, which may see the need for native applications diminished in some areas.