<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Briefly Noted for December 23, 2009</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/</link>
	<description>by Tom Scheinfeldt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:13:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Scheinfeldt</title>
		<link>http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-9025</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Scheinfeldt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/#comment-9025</guid>
		<description>@Bryan - Probably not. But the Web will make headway. As Android grows in popularity in 2010, it will become increasingly cost effective to develop a single mobile web application rather two separate native applications. Because they both run on WebKit, a site designed for the mobile, iPhone version of Safari renders almost identically on Android. There will still (and may always) be a place for native applications for resource or user interface intensive applications (like photo editors or email clients) but for simple retrieval and delivery of information, the Web will win for the same reasons it always has: it&#039;s open, it&#039;s cross-platform, and it&#039;s cheap. And from a user perspective, why on earth would I want a hundred tiny icons for a hundred different apps for the hundred different publications I read on my home screen, when I can have one web browser that delivers the same content just a quickly and easily across devices?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Bryan &#8211; Probably not. But the Web will make headway. As Android grows in popularity in 2010, it will become increasingly cost effective to develop a single mobile web application rather two separate native applications. Because they both run on WebKit, a site designed for the mobile, iPhone version of Safari renders almost identically on Android. There will still (and may always) be a place for native applications for resource or user interface intensive applications (like photo editors or email clients) but for simple retrieval and delivery of information, the Web will win for the same reasons it always has: it&#8217;s open, it&#8217;s cross-platform, and it&#8217;s cheap. And from a user perspective, why on earth would I want a hundred tiny icons for a hundred different apps for the hundred different publications I read on my home screen, when I can have one web browser that delivers the same content just a quickly and easily across devices?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan Alexander</title>
		<link>http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-9016</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundhistory.org/2009/12/23/briefly-noted-for-december-23-2009/#comment-9016</guid>
		<description>What do you think, Tom, for 2010?  Is the open Web going to outflank the walled gardens on mobile devices before 2011?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think, Tom, for 2010?  Is the open Web going to outflank the walled gardens on mobile devices before 2011?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
