I thought the iPhone already had a full fledged browser that could bring you an internet that's not watered down, graphics less and weak. I thought it could bring you THE internet (flash as you all should know is a bag of hurt). So why is this needed? Why is it even wanted?
I really don't know. The browser adaptive webpage they already have (and engadget) is already good. Actually I've changed my desktop experience so it is the mobile site... Much faster and focused.
As for engadget making an app, the brand-harems of everyone cept apple and the general haters would start spitting blood from their eyes as the rage overwhelmed them. I can imagine all the script-kiddies starting up their downloaded DoS apps and targeting engadget.
Actuallly if engadget has any sense for it's own survival, there will be no App for iPhone, even the comment system would crash under the all out warfare that would breakout.
@10minutehobo - the iPhone has no problem rendering both full (normal) webpages, and mobile-optimised webpages. Obviously, the mobile versions are usually smaller and therefore load quicker and with less impact on a non-unlimited data plan, while the full versions look and feel like the webpages on a desktop or laptop, so it is good to be able to choose. Browsers on other modern smartphones have an identical ability.
The point of the app itself is - quicker access to certain parts of TUAW, a layout and interface not constricted by HTML, in the future a push system so you don't have to reload the webpage to see new stories, access to potential new readers (browsers of the App Store who don't read TUAW yet), and the fact that many users would prefer the ease of "open an app" instead of "open Safari, access bookmarks, select TUAW bookmark".
Following the commercial success (and technical disappointment) of the original Wildfire -- which featured a miserly 528MHz CPU and QVGA display -- HTC has returned with the Wildfire S.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I thought the iPhone already had a full fledged browser that could bring you an internet that's not watered down, graphics less and weak. I thought it could bring you THE internet (flash as you all should know is a bag of hurt). So why is this needed? Why is it even wanted?
I really don't know. The browser adaptive webpage they already have (and engadget) is already good. Actually I've changed my desktop experience so it is the mobile site... Much faster and focused.
As for engadget making an app, the brand-harems of everyone cept apple and the general haters would start spitting blood from their eyes as the rage overwhelmed them. I can imagine all the script-kiddies starting up their downloaded DoS apps and targeting engadget.
Actuallly if engadget has any sense for it's own survival, there will be no App for iPhone, even the comment system would crash under the all out warfare that would breakout.
@10minutehobo - the iPhone has no problem rendering both full (normal) webpages, and mobile-optimised webpages. Obviously, the mobile versions are usually smaller and therefore load quicker and with less impact on a non-unlimited data plan, while the full versions look and feel like the webpages on a desktop or laptop, so it is good to be able to choose. Browsers on other modern smartphones have an identical ability.
The point of the app itself is - quicker access to certain parts of TUAW, a layout and interface not constricted by HTML, in the future a push system so you don't have to reload the webpage to see new stories, access to potential new readers (browsers of the App Store who don't read TUAW yet), and the fact that many users would prefer the ease of "open an app" instead of "open Safari, access bookmarks, select TUAW bookmark".