This is what I have been pondering over for sometime. I have been trying to understand the difference between a mobile web app and a native app in terms of their applications and relative advantages over each other.
While trying to experiment with this idea, I have published web apps and native apps for this blog across Android, Blackberry and recently Apple platforms.
I understand that Apple App Store does not allow Web apps in them. They encourage only Native apps through which they make money.
Android does not seem to have such restrictions. Blackberry also allows Web Apps to be published in their App World.
With the recent HTML5, some say that soon the era of Native Apps will be long gone. Even Facebook is trying to create its own HTML5 based App Market.
Here is an interesting Infographic that I wanted to share with you about Mobile Web Apps vs Native Apps. There are lots of them out there, but this Infographic presentation is well presented and brief.
An annual week-long, 24-hours-a-day technology festival, where thousands of ‘campuseros’ descend on a huge venue with their laptops and other gear, camp on-site and do what they do best: get their geek on.
For Details: Click Here
Last year, we covered an ambitious collaborative R&D project called "Startup Genome," created by three young entrepreneurs, Bjoern Herrmann, Max Marmer, and Ertan Dogrultan. The goal of the ongoing project was (and is) to take a comprehensive, data-driven dive into what makes tech startups successful -- and not so successful.
Out of its research came, among other things, Startup Compass…
Encouraging to see Bangalore in Top 10 and quite appalled to find Mumbai at 20th. There seems to be a strong bias towards eCommerce, Social Media and marketplaces based products. All the developed Ecosystems seem to have outsourcing as a key for product development. So cost arbitrage does play a role. Not sure if this leads to less product ownership. Something that still makes Silicon Valley great at product innovations as they build their own products. Not surprisingly Silicon Valley leads in product heavy geeky teams and NYC leads in business heavy teams. Which goes to show why Silicon Valley also is the best in incubating ideas at seed stage. No wonder Instagram is a techie company with no revenue yet a $1B valuation. Typically a SV product! More capital available for incubation at SV. So the disruptive innovation still seems to be the core of SV. Are Indian Angels, VCs and entrepreneurs up for it? Or is it just about aping one of these top few areas? Surprisingly Sao Paolo is above Bangalore! goes to show how Brazil is quickly coming to the mainstream radar.
When I founded IPsoft in 1998, one of my main goals was to decrease the incredible amount of time IT professionals spent managing applications and tools. Over the previous decade, IT experts had become so entangled in mundane, repetitive chores, that they ended up losing the passion and creativity that drove them to the industry in the first place.
That was 14 years ago.
Read a very good article by Paul Graham on ambitious startup ideas. Although, his ideas seem stretched and demanding for many to achieve, what I really liked was the last 2 paragraphs where he essentially states that entrepreneurs do not need to think about changing the world, do not need to be a visionary to radically change the way things happen at the moment. They need not think about a global problem for the masses to work on. Instead they should have an incremental approach to do 1 thing better at a time for problems which they themselves can identify with. At business schools we are taught about disruptive innovations that change the way businesses work. However, I believe it is easier and more practical to work on an idea incrementally to achieve disruption gradually than starting with a disruptive idea. It is easier to talk about disruptive models in retrospect than foreseeing the future.
Here is the quote from Paul Graham:
“Empirically, it’s not just for other people that you need to start small. You need to for your own sake. Neither Bill Gates nor Mark Zuckerberg knew at first how big their companies were going to get. All they knew was that they were onto something. Maybe it’s a bad idea to have really big ambitions initially, because the bigger your ambition, the longer it’s going to take, and the further you project into the future, the more likely you’ll get it wrong.
I think the way to use these big ideas is not to try to identify a precise point in the future and then ask yourself how to get from here to there, like the popular image of a visionary. You’ll be better off if you operate like Columbus and just head in a general westerly direction. Don’t try to construct the future like a building, because your current blueprint is almost certainly mistaken. Start with something you know works, and when you expand, expand westward.
The popular image of the visionary is someone with a clear view of the future, but empirically it may be better to have a blurry one.”