I guess we all know what a web app is - it’s an app that runs in a browser (and nowadays generally taken to mean one developed using HTML/CSS/JavaScript, rather than with say Flash).

And we not infrequently see (ok, so I’m in my own very small way partly responsible for) debates about the benefits of native vs. web apps.

But just as I recently asked what exactly is a hybrid app (well, to be more direct, asserted the concept of a hybrid app is BS), in fairness, one should ask just what is a native app?

Now, why does this actually matter? Well, in part because of articles like this

Pretenders: Why mobile Web apps should stop trying to act like native apps

It’s of course an idea that has been expressed before. But it rests on the foundational idea that there is such a thing as a platonic, or universal*, ideal native app.

Somehow, “real” native apps reflect the qualities of this “ideal” native app, while “pretend” (to use Craig Villamor’s) formulation, apps somehow fall short of user’s expectations -“something isn’t quite right” about them. Apparently.

But what exactly is this user expectation? Why, the user expects the qualities of native apps of course! Which leads us tortuously back to our starting point - what exactly is a native app?

At the simplest level, it’s an application that can be installed onto the user’s device typically via an app store (trade mark disputes pending). But as apps can be built with all kinds of technologies (flash, HTML, …) and deployed in this way, this can’t be what is meant by a native app.

What people actually mean when they say native app is really iOS apps developed with Objective-C and which use the CocoaTouch framework. I’m pretty sure few if any people when they talk web versus native mean webOS, Blackberry, Android, or Widows Phone 7 native apps.

So, in order for an app to be native, it would have to extensively use the native UI frameworks (in particular CocoaTouch), in order to “like a native app”, to “respond as expected”, to “follow the conventions of a native app”.

Now, what would more likely “meet their user’s expectations”, “respond as expected”, “follow the conventions of a platform” than the top 10 paid apps for a platform?

So, a quick quiz.

How many of the top 10 paid iPhone apps use CocoaTouch for the core aspects of their UI? Surely, if native experiences give the advantage we so frequently hear about it would be close to all of them? The answer, as of June 21 2011, is precisely 1. And even that one, WhatsApp Messenger, I’d suggest, is far from the sort of purist experience that you might expect. Take a look.

To tell the truth, this surprised even me.

Android native apps?

So, how about Android apps? Even though I’ve asserted that when people refer to native apps they are actually referring to native iOS apps, let’s take a look *

Based on what little research I’ve done (looking at Screenshots at the Android Store - hey, it’s more research than most people do in this space!- at most 3 apps (one or more of which may be faking it of course) are “native” Android apps.

I could go on, but I think the basic point should be emerging. Users really aren’t all that concerned that an app “follows the conventions of a native app”. Like much to do with these debates, such observations are mere assertions, unsupported by any evidence.

From the perspective of the user, the “native” app is a myth. If “nativity” were such a compelling user desire, would 90% of the top paid iPhone Apps use little if any CocoaTouch UI elements?

Ironically, this leads me ultimately to Craig’s conclusion, though for different reasons. When building web apps, don’t ape “native” (that is iOS) user experiences. User’s it would seem don’t actually give a damn.

[1]No, not an app that runs on iPad and iPhone, or 68K and PPC Macs.

[2]I’m largely ignorant (as I think almost all non-technicaly-savvy Android users will be) as to just what constitutes a native UX on Android, so my numbers might well be off here, though only over estimating the number of native android apps.