I disagree with you that the browser is going to be dominant over apps. If only because Website owners have yet to create anything that comes close to the user experience in apps (which, admittedly, still have a ways to go themselves).

The speed, ease of use, and logic of news apps like USA Today and the NPR app give me a sense that the ‘old media’ publishers are on to something.

I think that experience *can* be replicated on Websites and therefore the browser may eventually rule, but at the moment, with legacy browsers like IE creating an environment where sites would have to have two separate versions to embrace the advanced, app-like, features of HTML5, we’re stuck in the middle.

I also think that the entire aesthetic of an app, where the user is captive for the moment, is a better one than the Web where sites can’t help but to get every piece of information, link, add, archived article on the page for fear that the reader will miss it.

If anything, iPad apps should be showing those of us who influence or build Websites that there’s a better way.

Right now, it’s difficult to argue that iPad/iPhone app development isn’t driven the same way Flash is — execs like the shiny, shiny. You can argue it’s R&D, but now that the ship is sinking, isn’t it time to make some money? If not now, when?

Plus, the addition of more versions of a product, each with different price points and restrictions, is going to generate serious friction with consumers soon, which should lead to the emergence of bundled subscription plans, which will eat into the ROI for these new apps. Less revenue generated, but same support & development costs.

It’s a dangerous game when media companies start believing they can be software companies.

D.B., I agree with you that we’re in the very early stages of iPad news apps. As news organizations and their audiences explore the device and what it can do, we’ll see much better ones. And that’s good news for everybody.

What surprised me, though, was what a better experience using the browser on an iPad is compared with using a browser on a laptop or desktop. The iPad’s speed, coupled with the form factor and the whole “lean back” experience, all make for a big improvement. News organizations’ iPad apps will have to compete with not only their own free sites, but also their own free sites as experienced on an iPad. That’s a competitor I hadn’t thought about, and that they likely missed too.

This week Vanity Fair, a Condé Nast property, released its iPad app and it is essentially two publications in one: the landscape mode is an almost exact replica of the print product, while the portrait mode is something a bit different, with design variations and more embedded rich media. Their app makes some important progress in taking advantage of the tablet format.

We are still waiting, however, for the first news apps that can truly be called “designed for the iPad” — but they will come, either from a traditional media company, or from a new company that is launched because they see an opportunity.

(One thing designers should consider is that the iPad is a better long form news device than is the web. It is capable for easier navigation, embedded media, and better layouts. Short news reads may always be better consumed “online” — no matter what device is used.)

No offense, but I just don’t see the purpose of having a custom app for a website that is perfectly fine inside a browser. The only shortcoming with browser experience in the iPad is the lack of Flash, Silverlight and even Java.

I don’t buy the excuses either. It Flash could be set to “click to activate” and thus eliminating downloading and playing of content you are not interested in (sort of a built-in ad blocker!)

Skimming (as opposed to actually reading) shouldn’t be the norm if publishers improved the reader’s experience.