Support
NA *****
Hybrid apps can be ported to multiple platforms. However, for each
platform, a specific native module/container must be developed.
Support for older devices can be challenging for hybrid apps due to
rich HTML features that might not work on devices with old browsers.
However, a hybrid app can utilize device detection to trim features for
low-end devices.
Response
Time ***** ****
In terms of performance, native apps are faster. Typically, a native app
uses back-end services (REST, Web services, etc.) to retrieve the data
and represent it in the user interface (UI). Whereas in the hybrid architecture, server-side components (presentation tier) return HTML markup
which is rendered by a native browser packaged within the app. This
causes additional overhead as compared with pure native applications.
User
Experience ***** ***
Native apps are best in terms of usability, as they leverage device capabilities such as gestures as well as hardware controls such as a camera,
GPS, accelerometer, compass, list of contacts, etc. In terms of look and
feel, hybrid apps need extra effort to make them simulate a native app.
It requires the adoption of third-party JavaScript JS libraries such as
jQuery Mobile1 scrolling libraries (e.g., swipe JS2, iScroll3, Zynga4, etc.).
Development
Cost *** ****
It’s arguably cheaper to develop hybrid apps, as the development
the process involves writing a native shell/container and the wrapper over the
existing presentation layer using third-party libraries. For native apps
there are specialized skills required for each platform.
Support
Cost *** ****
Maintaining a native app requires specialized skills (especially if they
need access to multiple versions of the same information on different
platforms). Changes have to be packaged in a new version and placed in
the app/play stores. On the other hand, maintaining a hybrid app is as
simple as maintaining a Web page, which can be conducted as needed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment