Progressive Web Apps versus native is the wrong question because every step on the path to a Progressive Web App makes sense on its own, irrespective of what a company does with their native apps.
Not all of your customers are going to have your app installed. For those who visit via the web, providing them with a better experience will make them happier and generate more revenue for your business.
It’s really that simple.
A nice introduction to progressive web apps. There’s a little bit of confusion about permissions—whether a site has been added to the home screen or not has no effect on the permissions granted to it (for things like push notifications)—but the wrap-up nails the advantages of using the web:
No more waiting to download an app, no more prompts for updating an app. From a developer perspective, it means we will be able to iterate a lot quicker. We don’t need to wait for app store approvals anymore, and we can deploy at our own leisure.
Another advantage that a progressive web app has over a native mobile app is that it is linkable, hence it is easier to share and, probably even more importantly, can be indexed by search engines. This makes discoverability of the app a lot better.
Alex runs through the features that a progressive web app must have, should have, and would be nice to have.
In general, installability criteria are tightening. Today’s Good-To-Haves may become part of tomorrow’s baseline. The opposite is unlikely because at least one major browser has made a strong commitment to tightening up the rules for installability.
Right now, this is in the nice-to-have category:
Mobile-friendly, not mobile-only.
Personally, I’d put that in the must-have category, and not just for progressive web apps.
Anyway, read on for some advice on testing and tooling when it comes to evaluating progressive web apps.
How Google And Others Are Plotting The Revenge Of The Web App | Fast Company | Business + Innovation
It’s always, um …”interesting” when a mainstream publication covers a topic from the web’s bikeshed. In this case, it’s progressive web apps, and—apart from the sensationalist headline—it’s actually not that bad at all.
This is a really good overview of progressive web apps:
An ideal web app is a web page that has the best aspects of both the web and native apps. It should be fast and quick to interact with, fit the device’s viewport, remain usable offline and be able to have an icon on the home screen.
At the same time, it must not sacrifice the things that make the web great, such as the ability to link deep into the app and to use URLs to enable sharing of content. Like the web, it should work well across platforms and not focus solely on mobile. It should behave just as well on a desktop computer as in other form factors, lest we risk having another era of unresponsive m.example.com websites.
The roadmap for progressive web apps from Microsoft; not just their support plans, but also some ideas for distribution.
I really, really like what Ember is aiming for here:
That’s how you get the holy grail of resilience and performance:
Subsequent visits and interactions are therefore nearly instantaneous, because they don’t rely on the network.
I sincerely hope other frameworks are paying attention to this layered approach.
Oh, and I also like this observation:
There’s an age-old argument about the difference between “web pages” and “web apps”. In reality, there’s a continuum between the two.
While many challenges remain, the good news is … it’s progressive. Developers can already see the benefits by sprinkling in these technologies to their existing websites and proceed to build on them as browsers and operating systems increase support.
Sensible words from Christian.
Web applications don’t follow new rules.
And frameworks will not help:
A lot of them are not really fixing fundamental problems of the web. What they do is add developer convenience. … This would be totally OK, if we were honest about it.
This a great proposal: well-researched and explained, it tackles the tricky subject of balancing security and access to native APIs.
Far too many ideas around installable websites focus on imitating native behaviour in a cargo-cult kind of way, whereas this acknowledges addressability (with URLs) as a killer feature of the web …a beautiful baby that we definitely don’t want to throw out with the bathwater.
An excellent point from Jonathan: both native apps and web apps require an internet connection …and both native apps and web apps can be made to work without an internet connection.
This might sound obvious, but the myth that “only native apps can work without an internet connection” is surprisingly widespread.
A real-world anecdote from Jonathan illustrates some of the misconceptions around using HTML instead of going native. A lot of people don’t realise that web apps can store data offline.
A quick overview and explanation of web intents.
A beautifully readable subset of the HTML spec, with an emphasis on writing web apps (and with information intended for browser makers has been removed). Very handy indeed!
Here's a little piece of web history: the proposal that was presented and rejected at the 2004 W3C workshop that led to the formation of the WHATWG.
Looks like Apple are trying to redefine the term "web app" to mean sites created for the iPhone. The revisionism is completely barefaced.
I used to think that Mike Arrington was a dick. Now I know he is.
The Future of Web Apps gets a write-up on the BBC site.
Danah Boyd's talk at ETech 2006.
The W3C proves that it can move with the times: "The mission of the W3C Web API Working Group is to develop specifications that enable improved client-side application development on the Web." This is very good news indeed.
CNET's News.com explains why web services are so cool.