These are some interesting things to consider. Especially the idea of committing to an app (or program) for a while before deciding if it’s working. I recently added a to-do list to my workflow (my calendar was becoming overwhelmed; a post about the switch is now on the to-do list!). For me, the important thing to consider with a new tool is how it’s making my life better. If it isn’t, I’m not using it. And also, people forget tools are just tools. Owning a hammer won’t make you a great builder. Building makes you a great builder.
I was sort of bummed by the piece because we seem to be learning there’s a limit to the number of apps people will use. So what happens when you want to know something that’s not represented by an app? Is the Journal’s assumption that if there’s not an icon, people will do without information? And isn’t a web browser considered an app? And also, contrary to popular belief, not all Internet work takes place on mobile devices.
Luckily, Quartz stepped in and ran a great piece on how the web is doing just fine—often because apps bring users to the web. Gina Trapani had a very brief review of Firefox OS on The Flame and her takeaway was that it’s great because it’s entirely webapp-based, meaning all you need to render apps is a browser.
Pushing content into apps limits access. Not everyone has a phone. Not everyone has the same phone. I use the Twitter app all the time but if I didn’t have the app, I could still use the mobile site. Why create artificial silos when there’s already a fine structure—the browser—for rendering content across devices? Luckily, it looks like the Journal got this call wrong.