作者：Mark Sigal, Unicorn Labs

手机网页应用vs.手机原生应用的“恶战”仍然激烈，这场论战的主题是，现在是否是时候更多地投入于手机网页应用（和服务），而不是手机原生应用。

但是，这场论战其实是错误的二元论。简单地说，尽管各派要求所有人赞同他们的观点，但在手机网页应用vs.手机原生应用的争论中，不存在普遍的真理，也没有“唯一正确的道路”。

mobile-app-vs-mobile-web(from webapptesting.com)

支持手机网页应用的观点是这样的：网页是开放的、普遍的，不需要特定的软件，可全球搜索，可摸索算法。就其本身而言，它是灵活的、可扩展的和易于管理的。再者，它有大量已被证实可行的开发、推广、营销和赢利的方法。当然，手机网页开发与基于PC浏览器的网页开发具有更高的相似度，超过手机原生应用开发。

支持手机原生应用的观点则是：目前全球有4亿多台iOS设备和5亿多台Android设备。在iOS上，苹果已经建立了一个管理妥善的开发、推广和营销平台，这个平台已经产生了无数的创意，吸引了无数的用户，他们在平台上进行各种活动，从摄影到游戏、社交网络、娱乐、教育、音乐和其他媒体。

在一定程度上，这场论战可归结为“足够好的”和“普遍的”vs.包括PC在内的设备上的“体验最丰富的”。

“原生”应用是临时性的东西？

为了对抗手机原生应用，网页应用支持者们提出了三条论据。

第一，HTML5取代不同的原生手机平台是迟早的事。

第二，因为手机原生应用是与应用商店捆绑在一起的，这就过分限制了开发商的活动，因此会阻碍创新。

第三，应用商店的赢利模式是不合理的。原生应用的开发成本比网页应用的高。在应用商店中实现“曝光”是很困难的，且如果是在iOS平台还需向苹果出让30％收益，太昂贵了。

我们来逐个击破上述论据。第一，HTML5。我要强调一下，我从1994年就开始搞技术了，特别是网页刚兴起的时候。在那时，人们认为网页浏览器的功能将强大到足以媲美原生PC应用。直到现在，我也没看到。

说得清楚一点，浏览器的功能是很强大很重要，但它只是一个软件。换句话说，很可能再过十年，我们还是在探讨相同的话题。

第二，如果说应用商店模式限制了创意，那么我希望有更多限制，因为就应用的种类来看，它们的设计和执行实在太繁杂了，简直就像热带雨林的物种多样性。同时，我仍然在等待哪怕只有一款手机网页应用能达到我的要求。

第三，这才是关键所在。手机原生应用的开发成本更高，虽然苹果可以骄傲地宣称自己为iOS开发者带来数亿万美元的收益，但真相是，将近一半的钱落入了前25位开发者口袋中。

就培养一个努力的、长久的、独立的开发者阶层来说，这种大量的制作者和相对少的购买者之间的分裂局面是不可能维持的。

尽管如此，认为原生应用的开发成高就反对它，转而支持网页应用开发，这仍是错误的二元论。

混乱的营销

我来解释一下。应用和应用商店模式实现了显著的开发、推广和赢利。它太容易了，谷歌提供搜索服务和亚马逊开展电子商务采用的就是同样的方法。

在讨论神奇的云技术时，我们忘记的是点击一下，成千上万的应用就涌显在设备上，这是多么神奇的事。这很管用啊，甚至是好极了，我可以通过一次性购买、预购、应用拓展、广告和非手机商业模式的增值服务等无数种方法来赢利。另外，让消费者购买前试用的方法也非常多。

然而，传输和推广并不像“曝光”。毫无意外，在70万个应用的海洋中，开发商要让他们的应用被用户发现是很不容易的。

换句话说，可以归结为这么一个过程——从“尝试”到“沉浸”和“购买”到熟练应用的周期。再者，在网页应用的领域中，也是类似的吧？与其争辩一个针对亿万玩家、管理良好的开发、推广和赢利的平台是不是好东西，不如去争论苹果收取30%的费用是否公平。更大的困境是，开发商曾经以为应用商店是他们的用户开发策略（例如，他们必须做的所有营销）。

除非苹果、谷歌和其他新兴公司得出其他结论，否则开发者现在就应该更加明确关于进入市场、营销投入等的设想。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why the mobile web vs. apps debate is a false dichotomy

By Mark Sigal, Unicorn Labs

The mobile web versus mobile native “grudge match” rages on, with almost 300 comments to Super VC Fred Wilson’s post on whether now is the time to invest in mobile web apps (and services) over mobile native ones.

But the arguments presented in favor of the mobile web over mobile native represent a false dichotomy. Simply put, there is no universal truth in the mobile web vs. mobile native debate, and no “one right way,” despite what the pontificators would have you believe.

The argument in favor of mobile web goes like this: The web is open, ubiquitous, requires no special software, is globally searchable and algorithmically discoverable. As such, it is agile, extensible and readily manageable. Plus, there are lots of proven models for development, discovery, distribution and monetization. And, of course, mobile web development offers a higher degree of symmetry to PC browser-based web development than mobile native app development does.

The argument is favor of mobile native goes like this: There are over 400 million iOS devices and over 500 million Android devices, representing almost 1 billion devices worldwide. In the case of iOS, Apple has built a well-managed development, distribution and monetization platform that has yielded tremendous innovation and user engagement in areas ranging from photography to gaming, social networking, entertainment, education, music and other rich media.

On some level, the argument comes down to “good enough” and “universal” vs. the “richest possible experience” on the device type that is subsuming the PC.

Is Mobile ‘Native’ a Temporary Thing?

Mobile web devotees make three arguments against the long-term viability of mobile native apps. One, they argue that it’s just a matter of time before HTML 5 gets “good enough” to obviate the need for distinct mobile native platforms.

Two, they assert that because mobile native apps are tied to app stores, this overly restricts what developers can do, thereby throttling innovation.

Three, they argue that app store economics don’t make sense. Native apps cost more to develop than web apps. Discovery within the app store is hard and giving up a 30% cut to Apple (in the case of iOS) is expensive.

Let’s tackle these one by one. First, HTML 5. Let me note that I have been in the tech business since 1994, essentially the dawn of the web, and the ethos even then was that the web browser would become as functionally rich as a native PC application. I’m still waiting.

To be clear, the browser is functional and essential, but it’s a crap piece of software. In other words, it could easily be another decade, and we’ll still be having this same conversation.

Two, if the app store model is throttling innovation, then I want more throttling because what I see in terms of the range of app types, and their design and implementation is a rain forest of diversity. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for even one mobile web app that stops me in my tracks.

Three, however, is where the real meat lies. Mobile native apps are more expensive to develop, and while Apple can proudly report that it’s paying billions of dollars to iOS developers, the messier truth is that approximately half of those dollars are going to just 25 developers.

That type of split between the mass of makers and the relative few takers is not sustainable in terms of cultivating a thriving, sustainable independent developer class, something that I blogged about previously (see ‘The iPhone, the Angry Bird and the Pink Elephant‘).

Nonetheless, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that native app economics is an argument against mobile native, and in favor of mobile web.

Confusing Delivery with Dollars

Let me explain. The app and app store model delivers phenomenal development, distribution and monetization logistics. It’s push-button easy in the same way that Google made search push-button easy and Amazon made commerce push-button easy.

For all of the talk about the magical cloud, we forget just how magical it is that in a single click, hundreds of thousands of apps can find their way onto my device. It just works. Even better, there are inumerable ways that I can monetize that – be it via one-time purchase, subscription, in-app product extensions, advertising, and augmentation of a non-mobile business model. Moreover, there are many ways that I can let consumers try before they buy.

However, delivery and distribution are not the same as “discovery.” Unsurprisingly, in a sea of 700,000 apps, it’s not easy for developers to have their apps be discovered by users.

But you know what? That is less of a damnation of the app store model and more of an indication that the process of discovering native apps is not much better than the process of discovering web apps.

Put another way, it all comes down to the on-boarding process — from “try” to “engage” and “buy” to a well-codified usage lifecycle. Again, this is a similar variable in the web app universe, right? ??One can quibble about whether Apple’s 30% cut is fair, more so than whether a well-managed development, distribution and monetization platform targeting hundreds of millions of users is a good thing.?? The bigger dilemma is that, once upon a time, developers assumed that the app store was their customer acquisition strategy (i.e., all the marketing that they need to do).

Until proven otherwise by Apple, Google or other upstarts, developers should now know better — and that, of course, changes assumptions about go-to-market, marketing spend, etc.（source：gigaom）