Microsoft no fan of existing WebRTC standard, proposes its own to get Skype onboard

Microsoft, objecting to a web standard promoted by its competitors? Get out. While Firefox, Opera and now Chrome have implemented WebRTC on some level for plugin-free VoIP and webcam chats, Microsoft doesn't think the existing, proposed standard is up to snuff for linking with existing devices or obeying "key web tenets." It's suggesting a new CU-RTC-Web standard to fix what it claims is broken with WebRTC. Thankfully, the changes are more technical improvements than political maneuvering: Microsoft wants a peer-to-peer transport level that gives more control as well as to reduce some of the requirements that it sees holding the technology back as of today. There's no doubt an economic incentive for a company that wants to push Skype in the browser, but the format is already in front of the W3C and could become a real cross-platform standard. If other W3C members are willing to (slightly) reinvent the wheel, Microsoft's approach could get Chrome and Internet Explorer users talking -- no, really talking.

5 Reasons HTML5 Apps are Hard to Monetize

Even though the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) doesn’t expect full HTML5 implementation until 2022, there is no shortage of great apps out there already based on HTML5. This is because HTML5 offers some distinct advantages over its counterparts, including improved graphics and animations, dynamic data storage features, and geolocation support.
That said, some hurdles remain, particularly with apps. Below are five big reasons why HTML5 apps are difficult to monetize.

1. Discovery is Difficult

HTML5 app discovery is extremely tough for one big reason: There are no well-known sites where you can find them. Sure, Facebook’s App Center and the Mozilla Marketplace offer HTML5 apps, but most people aren’t aware that these sites exist, and they aren’t optimized for mobile devices.
This is a huge issue. If no one knows where to find your app, or that you even have an app, distribution and promotion suffers and it’s impossible to ever gain a substantial number of users.

2. Support is Limited

Developing HTML5 apps is not as straightforward as building desktop web apps. In the mobile world, there are multiple operating systems, a number of different browsers, various screen sizes, and thousands of devices that developers have to consider.
With a great deal of complex animation and graphics running on mobile web apps, the user experience on an unsupported browser or device can suffer. Frameworks like PhoneGap and Sencha are great tools, but there is still a lot of room for improvement, and they will need support from browsers and device markers. Without their support, it is very difficult to achieve the build-once, deploy-everywhere ideal.

3. Lack of Ad Networks

The advertising model for native apps is expansive, well defined, and can be very lucrative. It’s also something that’s been cultivated over several years and has healthy competition and diversity among the players.
But there is not yet a standardized ad platform that enables advertisers to develop one HTML5 ad and deploy it on multiple Apple, Android, BlackBerry or Windows devices. A few companies are starting to build their own HTML5 ad networks, but there is no model that those developers are comfortable with and that have demonstrated profitability.

4. No Standard HTML5 Payment Framework

When the latest version of Angry Birds goes live, users need only jump into their respective app store and within a click or two the app is purchased and loaded on their phone. Their credit card information is saved in the app store, which users tend to trust as a secure environment, making app purchases as safe and easy as it gets.
There are a number of payment tools out there for web apps, but there is no standardized payment framework that is secure or easy enough for prime time. The Chrome Web Store integrates Google Checkout, but it’s a vendor-locked solution and not accessible to everyone. Unless the HTML5 community can find a way to replicate the native app payment process — or define a new, secure and convenient way — consumers are going to be uncomfortable.

5. Hesitant Consumer Behavior

People understand how native apps work — download them from a marketplace directly to the phone’s home screen — and are comfortable with them. They see the process as a simple, safe, and painless one. But downloading HTML5 apps is a different process, one consumers are not used to and, thus far, have been reluctant to try.
The larger question, though, may be whether consumers will adopt a more web-oriented view of the world, one where apps are downloaded through a browser, or whether HTML5 will instead interact with native apps to form a hybrid environment.
The benefits of HTML5 are clear — write once, deploy everywhere — but there are still many monetization, performance, and technical limitations that are preventing the mobile community from going “all in.”

A new HTML5 rift? Not quite

Nobody ever said it was easy having two groups writing the same standard for building Web pages.
But what looked like new divergence between the two groups that create the HTML standard surfaced last week probably shouldn't be taken as evidence of new problems in the process.
HTML standard editor and Google employee Ian "Hixie" Hickson sent ripples across the Web standards world when he described an HTML standard "fork" that involves new separation between the versions of HTML maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and by the Web Hypertext Applications Technology Working Group (WHATWG). Specifically, where Hickson previously was editor of both organizations' version of the standard, he's now just editor of the WHATWG version, he said.
The changes mean "we are now independent of the W3C HTML Working Group again, while still maintaining a working relationship with the W3C," Hickson said.
Browser makers Opera and Mozilla founded WHATWG years ago when the W3C concluded HTML wasn't worth further development; the W3C got involved again after its alternative, XHTML 2.0, failed to catch on. The fruit of this work is HTML5, which technically refers to a new version of the Hypertext Markup Language that governs how programmers describe Web pages but which in practice also embraces a variety of other HTML and other Web standards.
The W3C is focused on producing a "snapshot" of HTML5, a polished and formal version that a wide variety browser makers (that includes companies that manufacture everything from smartphones to TVs these days) can count on for stability and compatibility. But Hickson and the WHATWG, reflecting the more fluid state of affairs that prevails in Web development circles, are aiming for a "living standard" approach to HTML, in which the standard is a constant work in progress.
"My hope is that the net effect of all this will be that work on the HTML Living Standard will accelerate again, resuming the pace it had before we started working with the W3C working group," Hickson said.
The divergent priorities run the risk of incompatible versions of the HTML standard, with Web programmer confusion about how to create a Web page and browser confusion about how to interpret it. That's why the word "fork" is such a loaded term in the Web standards world: nobody wants a Web that works for some but is broken for others.
But now probably isn't the time to get agitated.
For one thing, many of the same people are actually involved at both organizations, so there's a lot of overlap. And Hickson specifically remains formally involved through a WHAT Community Group within the W3C and through participation in the W3C's HTML.next project, said W3C spokesman and HTML4 editor Ian Jacobs.
Second, Hickson's announcement last week was about tracking bugs rather than setting policy. The W3C actually announced an effort to find new HTML editors in April. "As W3C proceeds with its work on follow-ons to HTML5, W3C and the WHATWG plan to continue their partnership in developing the right features for the future Web," the W3C's HTML Working Group leaders said. The real philosophical rift between W3C and WHATWG is much older, and Hickson's e-mail just reflected that difference.
Clearly a cultural divide remains, for example illustrated by former Opera standards guru Anne van Kesteren's complaint that that the W3C's HTML Working Group is about "governance and process" rather than the technology itself. "Technical discussions were rare and the tone not very pleasant," he said.
But the W3C still believes it's important to take its snapshot, even if that process requires something besides technical discussion. Jacobs said the organization has settled on candidates to lead HTML5 standardization work -- and that it's got new funding to pay employees to work on it.
"The W3C management team is announcing it's gotten support from Adobe and Google and Microsoft to hire staff to help finish the HTML5 standard," Jacobs said.