3 ms·

The argument seems to be that app developers aren't doing very well on the app store, and you're looking to the free and open web as the place where vast sums o

by mrcwinn 11y ago

The argument seems to be that app developers aren't doing very well on the app store, and you're looking to the free and open web as the place where vast sums of money will be made? For the vast majority of these apps, I beg to differ. The web plays by the same rules as the app ecosystem: it's very expensive to monetize, unless of course you are creating value for someone who has money and minimal friction when paying. "Unfortunately, the web platform itself wasn’t quite ready for the spotlight yet. It was sort of possible to build web apps that looked and performed like native apps..." Are you talking about 2007 or 2016? Native apps will always outperform non-native apps - and not because of any emotional or "political" reason - but for perfectly obvious technical reasons. Web apps have an extra layer between themselves and the hardware. Native apps do not (or, at least, the layer is much thinner). Even if web apps increase in speed another 100x, native apps will be right there too. Look, at the end of the day, use Android or iOS. I don't care. I've used both. But don't switch for this reason.

dhimes 11y ago
Thank you for a comment that actually speaks to the content of the article. Unfortunately it's buried under people commenting about their thoughts as a user. Which may be to the author's point: Apple's suppression (intended or not) of the web-app ecosystem has helped make the iPhone experience the (apparent) gold standard in mobile. [Note: I'm just summarizing- I don't know because it's all I use.] But I empathize with the author's view. In fact, let's not ignore the fact that some companies that have perfectly useful web pages have dreadful iPhone apps, and in those cases the web experience (even on the phone) is superior. But when you think of the ideal, you are correct and native wins.
mastazi 11y ago
> Web apps have an extra layer between themselves and the hardware. True but, on the other hand, native apps require extra steps to be taken by the user (go to the App Store, download the app) which somehow makes user acquisition harder. However we could also argue that once a native app is installed, that increases the chances of user retention, i.e. the user is more likely to use that service again.
hrktb 11y ago
This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough it's ok. I'll support this point: for so many services I'd be ok to trade off native performance for a smoother install process and independance from arbitrary rules. For instance amazon kindle app is severly limited by the app store rules while it has arguably no features that need to be native and does have almost no performance need (I wouldn't care if it took 250ms instead of 100ms to turn pages) Same goes with apps like google keep or to do list apps. Whole categories of app would be better off as locally installed web apps, if only the OS had better support for them.
- Narishma 11y ago
  > This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough it's ok. That may be true if you only care about performance, but what about battery usage? That's something important on a phone.
  - hrktb 11y ago
    Would the battery usage be much worse ? I get that taking more CPU time and doing less efficient operations will be worse, but this peaks would generally happen when the user is actively interacting, which in the running time of an app is not a lot. I would think the large majority of what this could be used for has less interactions and moving parts than the usual app. Of course someone would implement Quake in JS, but otherwise your note taking app or other utility (even a chat app) won't be actively sucking battery constantly.

by mrcwinn 11y ago

dhimes 11y ago

Thank you for a comment that actually speaks to the content of the article. Unfortunately it's buried under people commenting about their thoughts as a user. Which may be to the author's point: Apple's suppression (intended or not) of the web-app ecosystem has helped make the iPhone experience the (apparent) gold standard in mobile. [Note: I'm just summarizing- I don't know because it's all I use.] But I empathize with the author's view. In fact, let's not ignore the fact that some companies that have perfectly useful web pages have dreadful iPhone apps, and in those cases the web experience (even on the phone) is superior. But when you think of the ideal, you are correct and native wins.

mastazi 11y ago

> Web apps have an extra layer between themselves and the hardware. True but, on the other hand, native apps require extra steps to be taken by the user (go to the App Store, download the app) which somehow makes user acquisition harder. However we could also argue that once a native app is installed, that increases the chances of user retention, i.e. the user is more likely to use that service again.

hrktb 11y ago

This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough it's ok. I'll support this point: for so many services I'd be ok to trade off native performance for a smoother install process and independance from arbitrary rules. For instance amazon kindle app is severly limited by the app store rules while it has arguably no features that need to be native and does have almost no performance need (I wouldn't care if it took 250ms instead of 100ms to turn pages) Same goes with apps like google keep or to do list apps. Whole categories of app would be better off as locally installed web apps, if only the OS had better support for them.

Narishma 11y ago
> This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough it's ok. That may be true if you only care about performance, but what about battery usage? That's something important on a phone.
- hrktb 11y ago
  Would the battery usage be much worse ? I get that taking more CPU time and doing less efficient operations will be worse, but this peaks would generally happen when the user is actively interacting, which in the running time of an app is not a lot. I would think the large majority of what this could be used for has less interactions and moving parts than the usual app. Of course someone would implement Quake in JS, but otherwise your note taking app or other utility (even a chat app) won't be actively sucking battery constantly.