Nguyen goes into a lot of detail, and it’s a must-read for anyone thinking about commissioning an iOS (or really any mobile OS) application. Here’s one passage in particular that I know will resonate with a lot of freelance devs:

Converting an iPhone app to iPhone/iPad universal app: This is the worst ‘additional feature’ found in iPhone development contracts. Because an iPad app is not a frikin’ additional feature. The iPad app is always more complex than iPhone app, and most of the time requires entirely different interface and interaction mechanism. It’s like making an electric bicycle and then convert[ing] it to a fuel-powered motorcycle! They are very similar at what they do, but under the hood, the difference is immense. [Emphasis in the original]

A lot of companies may be interested in what an app can do for their business, but without a good sense of what kind of resources need to be invested in order to create the app in the first place, there is bound to be ample frustration on all sides. Nguyen’s no-nonsense primer is a good way to help avoid some of that frustration.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• 2012: Data, spectrum and the race to LTE

1. The limits of native apps can quickly change

Part of the argument behind the ability of HTML5 to replace native apps on devices like the iPad and iPhone is that the web tech is catching up in terms of features to iOS software. That may be true, but it will likely never actually reach par with native apps, because Apple is in the driver’s seat when it comes to what third-party software can and can’t do on its devices. Every new major iOS update brings new APIs for developers to play with, and each new hardware generation puts new connectivity options, radios and other hardware features at their disposal. For example, iOS 5 introduces 1,500 new APIs for developers to leverage, including access to iCloud Storage, Newsstand and Twitter.

Only Apple determines what its software can and can’t do and what kind of hardware it gets to work with; with HTML5, standards are set based on what all browsers will support, which requires more compromise. Also, HTML5 will necessarily have far more limited access to the full capabilities of iOS hardware, even though Apple has made some improvements on that side of things, like allowing mobile Safari to tap into larger portions of local device memory and geolocation services. But even if it looks like HTML5 is “catching up” to what’s possible with native apps, it will likely never actually match them, as Apple’s mobile tech evolves and it provides more APIs to native developers through the iOS SDK.

2. Apps have only just begun beating the mobile web

Mobile apps have only just recently started to be more popular than mobile websites for Internet access from smartphones and tablet devices. It’s a trend that has been in motion since the advent of app stores, and there’s little indication that it’s slowing or turning around, despite recent efforts by players like Vudu, Amazon and the Financial Times to create HTML5 web apps instead of going through Apple’s App Store.

It’s obvious that companies would prefer HTML5 over native apps, since web-based products would allow them to cut out Apple as a middleman and take in a larger percent of any profits, as well as make it easier for them to develop once for many platforms. But if studies around consumer mobile desires are any indication, the will on the user end of the spectrum just isn’t there to support an HTML5 mass migration. That may change as more HTML5 products come to market, but the advantages of native apps are still things consumers want: dependable offline access, device-specific interfaces and unfettered access to special hardware and software features.

I think Apple is poised to make more, not less, money from apps in the next few years, and I don’t think HTML5 is really in any position to cut into those profits yet.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• HTML5 or native mobile app? How about both?
• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs

The patent held by Droplets seems to apply to such a wide range of Apple’s web-based properties because it’s fairly broad in scope; it describes a “system and method for delivering a graphical user interface of remote applications over a thin bandwidth connection.” So, in other words, it’s a way of presenting a web app stored on a server as a usable front-end for customers browsing from home.

Droplets isn’t just a patent holding company. Its customers include IBM, Borland and PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as many other companies. Apple also isn’t the only company targeted, as Google, Facebook and Yahoo are also named. The patent in question, No. 6,687,745, was filed for in June 2000 and formally awarded to Droplets in 2004.

One PatentlyApple reader notes that a version of the Apple movie trailers site exists as early as 1999, however, and former NeXT/Apple engineer Marc J. Driftmeyer says that the methods described in the patent were “sold through WebObjects functionality back in 1996. They were based upon patents from AppKit/Foundation Kit long before that.” WebObjects is a Java web application server and web applications framework created by NeXT and subsequently acquired by Apple when it took over that company. These points could theoretically be used to argue against the validity of Droplets Inc.’s patents, at least in terms of their applicability to Apple products.

Apple seems barely able to go a week without incurring some new legal patent issue. WiLAN and Openwave have both targeted the company in the past few weeks, and Google and its hardware partners are wrapped up in multiple lawsuits involving Cupertino.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content

1. Reeder

Most of us likely do a lot of reading on our Macs. Reeder for Mac is a great way to make that reading even more of a pleasure. The RSS app ties into your Google Reader account, and syncs read and unread status Google and with Reeder for iOS devices. The Mac version was already a lot like the iPad version when it first came out, and with full-screen support in the latest version, it’s even more so. Grab a coffee, but leave the newspaper on the table; Reeder with full-screen active provides a distraction-free environment for catching up with all the latest.

2. Screens

When you need to remotely access your computer, there isn’t always an easy solution, especially when you’re trying to connect from the road. Screens (combined with Screens Connect for hassle-free remote access) is a great way to quickly and easily setup and manage VNC access between Macs. With full-screen support, working on your home computer away from home (or your work computer from home) feels even more like you’re actually working on the target machine, since everything you see is on the remote Mac.

3. Fluid

I noted this update when it arrived, just ahead of Lion’s release, but it’s worth noting again. Fluid provides the ability to turn any website into its own, dedicated Mac app by creating a site-specific browser (SSB). Facebook, Google Docs, and Google Plus are all favorite Fluid apps of mine, and full-screen support means I can keep them even more safely contained away from more productive, work-related apps and content.

4. MarsEdit

If you’re a regular blogger with multiple sites on the go, you’ve probably heard of the Mac standby MarsEdit. It’s a blogging client that’s compatible with most major blogging services, including Blogger and Tumblr, and it’s a native Mac app. MarsEdit’s latest update allows you to compose and edit posts in full-screen mode, which means you can get down to writing in a much more distraction-free environment.

5. Sparrow

Apple’s new Mail app in Lion remedies a lot of the problems many users had with it, and brings some nice new features as well, but that doesn’t mean it’ll feel right for everyone. Alternatives are always appreciated, and none maybe more so than Sparrow, a nice light native email client originally designed for Gmail. Sparrow now works with most other email services as well, and it has a refreshing simplicity that Apple’s own offering can’t match. Plus, now that it has full-screen support, it provides a great environment for catching up on your correspondence in a really focused way.

Those aren’t the only apps with full-screen support, but they are my favorite. What are yours, and which would you like to see get the update that don’t have it yet?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• Here Come the Social TV Apps
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

Apple’s App Store is a huge success, and it’s ironic that the introduction of native apps came largely at the behest of iPhone owners, who were dissatisfied with the company’s initial policy of only allowing third-party software on the platform via web apps. Web technology has made great strides since then, and HTML5 makes it possible to recreate rich-media effects without resorting to Flash, which is too resource-hungry for most current-gen mobile devices, and is barred from iOS devices. But despite advances, web apps have yet to prove themselves as a viable alternative to local native software. The Chrome Web Store, for example, powered by Google, hasn’t shown any signs of real success, and in fact, some have suggested it’s quite the opposite, including developers actually selling in the store.

Facebook does bring a built-in audience of 700 million users to the table, so it has that going for it. And a decent chunk of those users partake in social gaming from developers like Zynga, the makers of FarmVille, on Facebook’s desktop web platform. But Farmville, and many other social games that use in-game currency to make most of their money, have already found a profitable route to mobile thanks to Apple’s App Store. A Facebook offering might immediately appeal to some of these developers (the social network allegedly has 80 involved in the initial Project Spartan launch), but to prove a viable alternative in the long run, Facebook will have to either offer a better value proposition to devs (by giving them a bigger cut) or show that developers can reach more users than they do with native offerings.

For a store that resides entirely on the web, that’s a tall order, because it means convincing mobile users to shift their idea of what constitutes mobile software once again. It’s hard to understate how different it is to ask mobile users to pay for an application, versus asking them to pay for access to what basically amounts to a website. Facebook web apps will apparently carry a “Facebook wrapper” with basic Facebook functions and access to Credits, Facebook’s virtual currency, but it won’t change the fact that it’s a web page you’re looking at. To mobile users who have embraced the app store model, this will likely feel too much like backsliding.

I’m not at all of the opinion that mobile apps will ever replace the web, but I think we’ve also reached a point where web apps will never replace native ones. And Facebook, which still doesn’t treat the iPad as a mobile device, despite the fact that it has much more in common with the iPhone than with any PC, isn’t going to change that.

Apple may not understand the social web, as undertakings like Ping demonstrate, but it did seem to acknowledge that by partnering with a company that does when it introduced Twitter integration in iOS 5. Facebook, on the other hand, seems to have a blind side when it comes to monetizing mobile users, and Project Spartan is just another sign that it isn’t going to “get it” any time soon.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Here Come the Social TV Apps
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

Obviously, Playboy had little choice but to go the route of a web app with its uncensored iPad offering. While Playboy does have an app in the App Store, it doesn’t offer anywhere near the content of the magazine, and because of the restrictions against nudity and pornography in the App Store guidelines, it never could. But there are advantages to Playboy’s approach that extend beyond just sidestepping the censors.

The magazine doesn’t have to deal with Apple’s in-app subscription system, or the tithes the company expects from publishers in exchange for using it, for instance. The $8 monthly subscription fee that Playboy charges for access to its web app goes directly to its bottom line, without having to take out a 30-percent cut for Apple. Playboy also gets complete control over its relationship with the consumer. When you fill out your valuable personal info at sign-up, Playboy gets instant access to that info, without Apple’s pesky permissions dialog getting in the way.

Playboy’s web app also does a pretty good impression of a native app. The app detects orientation rotation, and provides you with either a single page or two-page layout accordingly, and it transitions smoothly between pages with swipe animations. Table of contents items are hyperlinked, so you can just tap on an article title to jump to that piece. If you add a shortcut icon to your iPad’s home screen, you might not even notice the app is housed in a browser.

But while the web app fairly accurately resembles a native app, a native app it is not. And that means it comes with some caveats, like no offline access, the occasional stutter when switching orientations, and an experience that doesn’t go very far beyond being a scanned digital representation of the print original. There are, for instance, no interactive features within the magazines themselves, and even the most recent issue (every single Playboy ever published is available to subscribers, an admittedly nice bonus) has fairly low-res text that’s hard to read and made somewhat fuzzy by JPEG artifacts. Also, two-page features and ads have a visible seam down the middle that rarely, if ever matches up correctly.

Playboy also doesn’t support multitasking, and asks for your login credentials every time you jump out of and back into the app. But the web app’s biggest failing is that it doesn’t do any local caching, so if you’re not connected to the internet, you have no access to any content whatsoever. Most native iPad magazine apps, by contrast, provide you with offline access once an issue is fully downloaded to your device.

Playboy may derive some potential benefit for itself by avoiding the institution that is Apple’s App Store, but it’s not doing customers any favors in the process. The web app only superficially resembles a native one, and I suspect App Store reviewers would’ve greeted the low-res scans with underwhelming scores, had Apple’s family values not precluded the possibility entirely.

The bottom line is that if publishers want to cut Apple out of the equation, they need to take extra care to ensure the product they come up with in the process is one that users are willing to venture afield to find. The App Store may be a more confining space, but it also takes care of a lot of the legwork related to marketing and discovery. Staying outside the gates requires a lot more effort than it looks like Playboy is wiling to put in.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

Web apps saved to the home screen of iOS devices run less than half as fast as the same apps launched from the Safari browser and don’t have offline caching access, according to a report by the Register. The site said web apps opened from the home screen are not able to take advantage of iOS’ updated Nitro JavaScript engine in 4.3, offline caching and asynchronous mode for better-looking apps. While this could very well be a bug that is yet to be fixed, it raises conspiracy suspicions of some who wonder if Apple is not in any hurry to have web apps on the home screen compete with native apps, which Apple gets a 30 percent cut of.

This comes not long after Apple also required publishers to use its in-app purchase system for subscriptions, which has prompted a lot of grumbling from some developers and publishers because it forces them to give Apple a 30 percent cut of revenues. One way to get around that would be to build web applications, which can be saved as bookmarks on to a home screen and can appear like a traditional native app. Apple has said it embraces both native and web applications built in HTML5 and other web standards. But if web apps launched from the home screen are slower or are crippled, it does give Apple’s native apps a better competitive edge. And it could be a big incentive for developers to stick with native apps rather than try and build web apps. That’s where concerns are popping up. A discussion on Hacker News includes suspicions that this is intentional.

“It makes web apps (that work with any platform) slower, while native apps are not penalized. That increases Apple’s revenue because it will encourage people to make native apps instead of web apps, which has a two-fold effect: one, they get 30 percent of the app’s revenue, and two, you have to buy an iPhone to use it,” said one commenter.

Now that is assuming the performance problem is purposeful. Again this could be a bug, though the Register quotes a developer who alerted the Mobile Safari team to the situation and said Apple indicated the situation will not be fixed. I have reached out to Apple and am waiting a response. In the meantime, here’s the details of the problem as reported by the Register:

The Safari browser includes a new Nitro JavaScript engine but that doesn’t appear to be available to apps launched from the home screen. That translates into web apps on the home screen running two to two and half times as slow as their Safari counterparts. Home screen web apps also can’t take advantage of web caching systems that allow an app to keep running even when offline. Web apps are also using an older “synchronous” mode of presenting content, instead of the new “asynchronous” mode which renders the screen better. The Register said that the issues also affect native apps that utilize Apple’s UIWebView API, basically native apps that are built in HTM5 and wrapped with a native wrapper. That means that native apps that lean heavily on web content can also see decreased performance.

If suspicions prove true and Apple is throttling the performance of some web apps, that would call into question its intentions behind supporting HTML5. Already, it has an advantage in promoting HTML5 and mobile web standards because they usually result in apps that are behind natively built apps. But the gap is closing and some developers are looking at building more applications built off the web, especially in light of Apple’s new subscription rules. I doubt though that Apple will leave this situation uncorrected, now that it’s come to light. If it wasn’t planning on fixing this quickly, it will now. It’s hard to see what the argument would be for leaving this situation in place except to boost downloads of native apps and hinder competition. Unlike the subscription rules, which can be argued are a big benefit to consumers, it’s hard to see how Apple could paint this as beneficial. So stay tuned for an update. Who knows, though, I could be wrong.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• Putting Big Data to Work: Opportunities for Enterprises
• The Future of Workplaces

In a lengthy post comparing developing using Cocoa Touch for the App Store vs. developing web applications, Gruber goes over the strengths and limitations of both. In the end, he reveals that a new web app framework would bring the experience of using web apps much closer to that of apps which reside natively on the iPhone. The new framework is apparently called PastryKit, and it’s an official Apple endeavor.

PastryKit brings three really important things to the table for web developers:

• Hides the address bar, without the need to create a home screen shortcut first, which currently allows that.
• Allows for static, fixed position toolbars that don’t scroll along with the rest of the page.
• Allows for scrolling momentum, which allows users to “fling” lengthy lists without causing scroll friction, the way web apps generally do now.

PastryKit has already been deployed in its iPhone User Guide web page, though you can only see the effects if you’re visiting the site on an iPhone. They are all JavaScript implementations, and so should be usable by any web developer. MacRumors points out that performance issues attached to the new features could arise on older-generation iPhone models, since these are known to have trouble with JavaScript in mobile Safari.

There’s little doubt that Apple is keeping its eye on the mobile web space, which is poised to explode thanks to recent developments in web tech like HTML5, CSS and others. There are some things that the App Store is no doubt better for, including advanced 3-D games like the kind released by Gameloft, ngmoco and EA, but for other apps, an improved web interface could be just what the doctor ordered.

If Apple can get smaller developers who are creating apps with limited or light functionality to take their business to the web instead of routing through the App Store, it’ll be able to eliminate a lot of the static and chatter that currently gums up the review process and no doubt costs Cupertino a not-insignificant amount of overhead. It may lose revenue, too, but the more lucrative titles will likely remain as dedicated apps, being the aforementioned games from major publishers I mentioned above.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories
• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview

Maybe it’s a shot across the bow of AT&T, sort of like all the buzz about Verizon-specific Apple devices, but if so, it’s not a very subtle one, and it contradicts all Apple policy on the matter to date.

I’m talking about a brief appearance (caught by Gizmodo, among others) on Apple’s own web site of a promotional reference to QuickPWN, which iPhone and iPod Touch owners will recognize as the hacking software that allows users to jailbreak their Apple handheld devices quickly and easily, without having to get very deep into the programming or code side of things. Apple, of course, disapproves, and generally tries to counter jailbreaking with each new firmware release.

Funny then that for a brief time yesterday, the screenshot above was what a page in their web application directory looked like. True, “QuickPWN” in this case referred to a website name and not the hacking software, but it’s clear where the web site took its name. In fact, a quick visit to the web site shows that its tagline is “Download QuickPWN, jailbreak iPhone and iPod Touch, games and more!”, so Apple’s own description of the site’s contents doesn’t seem to have quite gotten the point.

Obviously, this could not last. The page has since been removed by Apple, which must’ve somehow been asleep at the switch when it went through the first time. Maybe the web app listing is largely automated at this point, although I hardly think Apple would relinquish that much control over the process. According to Gizmodo, the QuickPWN web site folks seem to think that the only reason the listing has come down is because it was listed in the “Games” category, instead of the “News” section. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I can sell you in San Francisco.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

While Apple still seems stubbornly set against allowing iPhone users to get things done, since they haven’t introduced any kind of note or to-do syncing for the iPhone, Google appears eager to scratch the itch.

Today, Google announced that iPhone users can now visit an iPhone-optimized Gmail Tasks site by pointing their Safari browser to http://gmail.com/tasks. Tasks you create at the site are automatically synced to your Gmail account and are accessible via your desktop browser as well. The new optimized site was unveiled by Google Tasks Engineer Michael Bolin at the Official Gmail Blog yesterday.

After playing with the new web app for a little while, I can say that it’s an impressive offering from the folks at Google. The interface is visually appealing, and not too flashy. It works so well you almost forget you’re using a web app at all, with smooth transitions back and forth between screens, and easy to hit checkboxes for marking tasks complete or incomplete. You can create multiple lists to keep track of your tasks, and add Notes to any individual item on your lists. And it comes complete with a nice icon, should you decide to add a bookmark to your home screen.

The blog post by Bolin focuses on the whys and wherefores of how the design for the mobile version of Tasks came about, and it makes sense that his goal was accessibility and simplicity. Still, as someone who uses Remember the Milk and Appigo Todo, I do find myself missing some of the more advanced features of those apps. RTM’s location and tagging features in particular are ones that I find myself using a lot. And they still offer simple, quick task addition if you’re in a hurry or can’t be bothered to go into detail.

Still, Google’s offering is free, works well, and does what it means to, so if you’re just looking to keep things simple and remember to pick up your dry cleaning, then this is a great little app that fills in for some of Apple’s missing features. Check out the video below, or just navigate to the site with your iPhone or iPod touch.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories