Topic of the month covered by WebRTC “activists”
For this month the topic is: Web App, Native App or anything in-between. Which is best for WebRTC and in what cases?
WebRTC is being used on desktop and mobile mostly in a similar way to which users typically use services on these platforms. This means, web on desktop and native app on mobile. A few things to point out:
- Due to current lack of support for WebRTC in IE and Safari some use a plug-in for these browsers which means it is not a pure 100% web app but this should be viewed as a gap filler
- The more interesting case for desktop I ran into is a company that built a mission critical financial service with WebRTC. Due to the frequent version upgrades of browsers and since they can’t really control browser upgrades on PCs of their customers they decided to include WebRTC in a desktop native app so they can test and guaranty its stability
- End goal of most companies is a native app
- Due to priority and resource allocation many companies start with native app on iOS, browser on Android and only later build the app for Android
- On Android some opt for a hybrid app using WebView that already has WebRTC built into it in latest version
Link: Alan Quayle
I’ve been using the Wire web app since February, app.wire.com. Its fast, slick, and elegant; I highly recommend you give it a go. The user experience is refreshing, the audio quality is amazing, and content loads fast. WebRTC works well in this use case, its reliable and delivers nearly as good as experience as the the OS X app. The gap has nothing to do with Wire, and everything to how web apps are presented. I loose the page, I mistakenly close the page, I mistakenly close the browser. Once web apps are presented in OS X like native applications, why would I ever want to go back to having to close applications and upgrade software? But how long until that gap is closed?
As with anything else, it all depends on the use case.
That said, in most occurrences that I’ve noticed, the following rules of thumb apply:
- Desktop is dominated by the web app in a “traditional” web browser
- Mostly, that means an SPA (Single Page Application)
- At times, a browser extension or a packaged app in the form ofChromium Embedded Framework is used. This means that the HTML5 SPA is just packaged as an executable – there is little benefit from “going fully native” with WebRTC on the desktop
- Mobile is dominated by the app paradigm – with or without WebRTC
- Today, most of it is native in nature, but more and more I see vendors who are trying to build cross platform HTML5 web apps and wrap them as mobile apps
- More on approaches to mobile development in WebRTC can be found in myrecent report
Link: Disruptive Analysis
In general, WebRTC is better-surfaced as a web-app on PCs and via native app on smartphones. Tablets fall in-between, and other devices/IoT will vary case by case depending on how browsers are used anyway.
That is the key here – what is the *existing* role of the browser, and the associated user behaviour (& developer preferences). A taxi firm wanting to add a “speak to the driver” button isn’t going to re-write its entire existing native app as a webapp, just to enable feature #37. Or a user looking at a travel-booking website on a PC and big screen, or their company’s intranet, is going to be using a browser – so any real-time interaction is likely to be via the web.
Link: WebRTC Hacks
All the above for most use cases. The great thing about WebRTC is that it has great development community across web and mobile, so you don’t have to worry about making the wrong choice. There are plenty of mainstream examples like Wire, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts that use WebRTC to support both web and native mobile.
Would mobile WebRTC be easier if it was built into native web views? Of course. At least Android 5 has it today. iOS still requires someone who really knows how to code for iOS, but if you are building a serious iOS app you probably have that anyway. I am looking forward to broader support coming for cross-platform tools like Cordova/Phone-Gap and Xamarian.
Link: Personal page
WebRTC as technology fits both; I’d make a distinction based on the angle we’re looking at. In both browser and native app real-time communication could be built prior to WebRTC, but with more efforts (time, money, development, licenses). WebRTC equally lowered that barrier and offers now a cheaper entry with high-quality media stacks. For “professional” developers WebRTC is just another tool for a certain problem.
What I found the most interesting so far is that for web development, the barrier is so low that for the first time, non-developers are able to build communications applications. This is fascinating hence I’d draw the line here to emphasize the benefits I’ve perceived myself. If you’re not a professional app developer WebRTC won’t be an immediate savior for building a native comm’s app, but for a non-pro web dev it is an easy enabler to start building cool apps with inbuilt high-quality audio and video communications in a few hours.
Rules of engagement for Topic of the Month: No product/company promotion. Contributors should have a wide market perspective.
If you would like to join this initiative and have your opinion published here in future posts please drop me a note.Read more