4 ms·

I think the author is already addressing this: Yes, you can build 2007 websites much better now. They will be consistent across platforms and perform great. Bu

by rsp1984 10y ago

I think the author is already addressing this: Yes, you can build 2007 websites much better now. They will be consistent across platforms and perform great. But my 12 year olds don’t want 2007 websites. They want 2016 apps.

brianwawok 10y ago
12 year olds don't have money, I would wait till people are at least 16 to care if they use my app...
- RGamma 10y ago
  The toy industry would like to disagree!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- brbsix 10y ago
  I empathize with the sentiment, particularly with open source and professional tools. But in mobile gaming and learning, parents are big spenders. Even in 2013, parents of children aged 6-12 in the U.S. spent $2.60/mo on mobile game apps or mobile in-game items.[0] Also I'd guess that children under the age of 16 contributed largely to the success of Snapchat and other such apps. [0]: http://digitalkidssummit.com/2014/10/01/kids-6-12-in-the-us-generated-more-than-2-billion-of-gaming-revenue-in-2013/ http://digitalkidssummit.com/2014/10/01/kids-6-12-in-the-us-...
knieveltech 10y ago
That may even be true to a point but folks have been beating their budgets bloody against the design limitations of current web display technology for as long as I've been making websites (~15 years). This isn't a new rant.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
Sure, but "2016 App" and "2007 App" are not monolithic design choices. If you can decompose those things, you can keep the important bits and throw away the peacocking. Just a simple example: it's trivially easy to make large, flat shaded buttons on the web. That's going to be more familiar to younger users than native web buttons like those on HN. However, there's also spending weeks to make a web button that animates smoothly from one container to another and has a SVG icon that morphs into another different icon with magic sparkles. Doing that on the web will require grossly perverting the DOM and all of the web interaction expectations. A lot of the things we consider "Just 2016 App Things" are performances that native app builders have to do to give clients a reason to believe their $300/hour is well spent. No real value is produced except "design" awards for the shelf.
- derefr 10y ago
  > is largely just a thing that native app builders do to show off and give clients a reason to believe their $300/hour is well spent I recall an article by Zynga (maybe in Gamasutra? Can't find it now) that talked about user retention in relation to "rewards." They said that it's essentially a pure win to make every single action a user performs reward them in some way. Not a big reward—not a "points in a video game" kind of reward—but at least a pretty sound and an unexpectedly smooth animation (vis. "magic sparkles.") These things do make a difference, and it pays (in a competitive niche) for your app to do them. Just like B2B apps are sold mostly on checkbox features, B2C apps are sold mostly on how pretty they look doing their job in the app-store video.
  - akilism 10y ago
    The talk juice it or lose, by Martin Jonasson & Petri Purho, is all about this. Gotta be one of the best talks for anyone trying to make things interactive that also feel good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg
    - db1 10y ago
      Wow, excellent talk. I'm generally wary of these kinds of cosmetic changes, but the game really did look and feel so much better at the end.
unethical_ban 10y ago
What does that even mean?
beambot 10y ago
I seem to recall the median number of installed monthly apps sitting at zero for some time. Are you sure that "they want apps" or is it just that they're using the same few apps and web for everything else?
- brbsix 10y ago
  I think you're referencing the 2014 U.S. Mobile App Report by ComScore.[0] For a 3-month period in 2014, 65.5% of U.S. smartphone users download no new application each month. (see figure on page 6) I didn't see any more recent stats, at least without paying/signing up. [0]: http://www.ella.net/pdfs/comScore-US-Mobile-App-Report-2014.pdf http://www.ella.net/pdfs/comScore-US-Mobile-App-Report-2014....
pnathan 10y ago
To be honest, this sounds like something we should never encourage as an industry. It promotes inauthenticity and chasing the shiny rather than making substantive improvements. I'm going back to my Emacs editor. ;-)
EGreg 10y ago
What exactly differentiates a "2007 website" from a "2016 app"?
- collyw 10y ago
  Google maps was way better then. A little less screen for viewing the map, but way more usable.
  - samirm 10y ago
    I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but the latest big update made loading the map and scrolling around it much, much smoother and faster. Finally they did something right.
- sjs 10y ago
  Touch screens and gestures for one thing.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    Web supports this via touch* events

by rsp1984 10y ago

brianwawok 10y ago

12 year olds don't have money, I would wait till people are at least 16 to care if they use my app...

RGamma 10y ago
The toy industry would like to disagree!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
brbsix 10y ago
I empathize with the sentiment, particularly with open source and professional tools. But in mobile gaming and learning, parents are big spenders. Even in 2013, parents of children aged 6-12 in the U.S. spent $2.60/mo on mobile game apps or mobile in-game items.[0] Also I'd guess that children under the age of 16 contributed largely to the success of Snapchat and other such apps. [0]: http://digitalkidssummit.com/2014/10/01/kids-6-12-in-the-us-generated-more-than-2-billion-of-gaming-revenue-in-2013/ http://digitalkidssummit.com/2014/10/01/kids-6-12-in-the-us-...

knieveltech 10y ago

That may even be true to a point but folks have been beating their budgets bloody against the design limitations of current web display technology for as long as I've been making websites (~15 years). This isn't a new rant.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

Sure, but "2016 App" and "2007 App" are not monolithic design choices. If you can decompose those things, you can keep the important bits and throw away the peacocking. Just a simple example: it's trivially easy to make large, flat shaded buttons on the web. That's going to be more familiar to younger users than native web buttons like those on HN. However, there's also spending weeks to make a web button that animates smoothly from one container to another and has a SVG icon that morphs into another different icon with magic sparkles. Doing that on the web will require grossly perverting the DOM and all of the web interaction expectations. A lot of the things we consider "Just 2016 App Things" are performances that native app builders have to do to give clients a reason to believe their $300/hour is well spent. No real value is produced except "design" awards for the shelf.

derefr 10y ago
> is largely just a thing that native app builders do to show off and give clients a reason to believe their $300/hour is well spent I recall an article by Zynga (maybe in Gamasutra? Can't find it now) that talked about user retention in relation to "rewards." They said that it's essentially a pure win to make every single action a user performs reward them in some way. Not a big reward—not a "points in a video game" kind of reward—but at least a pretty sound and an unexpectedly smooth animation (vis. "magic sparkles.") These things do make a difference, and it pays (in a competitive niche) for your app to do them. Just like B2B apps are sold mostly on checkbox features, B2C apps are sold mostly on how pretty they look doing their job in the app-store video.
- akilism 10y ago
  The talk juice it or lose, by Martin Jonasson & Petri Purho, is all about this. Gotta be one of the best talks for anyone trying to make things interactive that also feel good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg
  - db1 10y ago
    Wow, excellent talk. I'm generally wary of these kinds of cosmetic changes, but the game really did look and feel so much better at the end.

unethical_ban 10y ago

What does that even mean?

beambot 10y ago

I seem to recall the median number of installed monthly apps sitting at zero for some time. Are you sure that "they want apps" or is it just that they're using the same few apps and web for everything else?

brbsix 10y ago
I think you're referencing the 2014 U.S. Mobile App Report by ComScore.[0] For a 3-month period in 2014, 65.5% of U.S. smartphone users download no new application each month. (see figure on page 6) I didn't see any more recent stats, at least without paying/signing up. [0]: http://www.ella.net/pdfs/comScore-US-Mobile-App-Report-2014.pdf http://www.ella.net/pdfs/comScore-US-Mobile-App-Report-2014....

pnathan 10y ago

To be honest, this sounds like something we should never encourage as an industry. It promotes inauthenticity and chasing the shiny rather than making substantive improvements. I'm going back to my Emacs editor. ;-)

EGreg 10y ago

What exactly differentiates a "2007 website" from a "2016 app"?

collyw 10y ago
Google maps was way better then. A little less screen for viewing the map, but way more usable.
- samirm 10y ago
  I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but the latest big update made loading the map and scrolling around it much, much smoother and faster. Finally they did something right.
sjs 10y ago
Touch screens and gestures for one thing.
- EGreg 10y ago
  Web supports this via touch* events