9 ms·

I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. My phone has access to multiple great browsers. Building a good lightweight web

I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. My phone has access to multiple great browsers. Building a good lightweight web app means I can access the content from anywhere without having to deal with annoyances of push notifications or (as much) creepy tracking. My favorite example of a mobile web app is currently Twitter Mobile [0]. I even like using it from my desktop. It's very lightweight, fast, and easy to read. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ https://mobile.twitter.com/

raverbashing 10y ago
If you like mobile.twitter you might like dabr.eu Apart from the default bright pink color it's lovely (and this is configurable) I use it to keep twitter more work-friendly
TekMol 10y ago
Seconded. Is there a way to run Android apps in a VM on Linux? A VM for phone applications would be similar to a browser. A browser runs websites in a safe environment. A way to run apps in a safe environment would be nice.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Look at Genymotion, I'm using it on Ubuntu 16.04 to test Telegram and Messenger bots without having to do it on my phone. There are some hops to go through to install Google Play but they are documented. I'll post some links when I go back to my computer with my notes. Edit: instructions. I downloaded Genymotion from https://www.genymotion.com/pricing-and-licensing/ https://www.genymotion.com/pricing-and-licensing/ (Individual, Basic, which costs no money). It's enough to run Android but you don't have Google Play. I followed these general directions to install it https://inthecheesefactory.com/blog/how-to-install-google-services-on-genymotion/en https://inthecheesefactory.com/blog/how-to-install-google-se... However the filetrip link didn't work (and I don't know if I want to trust it) and the google apps failed to install. I googled and eventually downloaded these files: ARM to x86 translation: http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/general/guide-genymotion-play-store-supersu-t3396840 http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/general/guide-genymo... Google Play: https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=24591023225177410 https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=24591023225177410 (banks_dynamic_gapps) The latter is for Android 6 so you should run an Android 6 image on your emulated device. My computer is still fine after installing those two files in the Android emulator but I don't take responsibility. Don't know how verified they are.
- xorcist 10y ago
  Many. I've used Android-x86(.org) on KVM which worked so well I didn't pursue others. There is some semi-commercial fork called Remix OS that's more polished. If you only need to use an app and not the rest of the environment you can also run it as a Chrome plugin under ARC and not mess with virtualization at all.
  - xenophonf 10y ago
    I can't connect to bdownload.fosshub.com, which hosts the Android-x86 images. Are those download links working for you?
    - opello 10y ago
      They also mirror releases to Sourceforge: https://sourceforge.net/projects/android-x86/files/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/android-x86/files/
      - xenophonf 10y ago
        Thank you, both!
    - xorcist 10y ago
      Fosshub was owned and trojaned some days ago, be careful with that site. The other download link should work (there are checksums in release notes).
- ewzimm 10y ago
  There are multiple ways to run phone apps in a VM on Linux. If you just want to try something, the quickest would be to download Android Studio or Eclipse and use the built-in VM meant for development.
- hobo_mark 10y ago
  There is a way to run Android apps in Chrome [1], which I refused to believe until I tried it with a random APK and worked perfectly. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc
nvk 10y ago
Not just that, it also requires a phone number just to get started.
- iMiiTH 10y ago
  I wish all social networks were like this, it would cut down on bots and spam significantly.
jaxondu 10y ago
Bad move for not having a web version. I just don't feel like downloading apps nowadays. A few of my friends are also like that.
- whatever_dude 10y ago
  You're probably not the target audience. I'd bet ~98% of the people on HN aren't. The app is aiming at the Instagram, Snapchat crowd. Instagram didn't have a web front until recently, Snapchat still doesn't.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    I have no idea who they think they're targeting but there's still a huge amount of friction involved in getting users to install an app. I don't think that a younger audience is immune to that.
    - whatever_dude 10y ago
      Have you seen kids using Instagram and (especially) SnapChat? Younger generations have a very different relationship to their devices than someone born, say, in the 70's or 80's has. They care very little about websites.
      - mbrock 10y ago
        Instagram and Snapchat made names for themselves by being novel, simple, immediate... You can explain in one sentence to your friends what's cool about them: "you can make your photos look great and see your friend's photos" and "you send quick selfies and they're deleted in like ten seconds so you don't have to care so much". This hello.com seems like a much broader kind of "social network" that I would have a hard time getting any of my friends or family to try, I think.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  No web version which also means there's probably noting really new or revolutionary. No federation. Not open. I've been messing with some of the old federated projects that never seemed to go anywhere. GNU Social, Diaosapra, etc. I'd like to just get a few nerd friends on one, just to say I'm at least trying to get away from the current model. Hello just looks like another ello.
lucasnemeth 10y ago
They seem to be building a web version, they are hiring for this: http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/index.html#frontend_swe http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/index.html#frontend_swe I think they just thought mobile was priority and are launching a MVP before having the web version...
apatters 10y ago
If the concept here is a social network which brings us closer to people who have similar interests and are geographically close to us then that is really cool. But a couple things don't feel right to me. 1) No web app - honestly I'm over installing apps and being bound to my phone. You lost me here. 2) A bit of 'wall of text' explaining what this is and I appreciate that the orkut.com bit is heartfelt, but this is not the best way to pull me in. 3) No actual content from the network that I can browse on the web to understand through immersion (this is what is needed instead of or to supplement the about text). 4) 'loves not likes' - Without delivering on the other bullets here I didn't connect with the product and therefore this sounded tacky. 5) The best of the jots - makes me feel maybe this is instagram? It just feels that the product planner is checked out or there hasn't been much conversation with the market or something. I guess I'd understand a lot better if I installed the app and signed up, but not going to, I shouldn't have to jump through those hoops just to understand the product. Admittedly I am just an average curious passerby with a short attention span here so my $0.02 is worth just that, $0.02. But hello.com could be onboarding people a lot more effectively in my opinion. Hate to just parrot everyone else but having no web app is the root of all of these issues I think. Orkut was great and I'm over FB/Twitter, hope this does well.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Re #2, consider that hello.com is the landing page for the app. The page linked here is a page with a different purpose that most potential users won't see.
spyder 10y ago
And even the android app is limited to "Android 5.0 and up" and to a few countries and it has low ratings and reviews from users. So it looks like a really weak "launch" :(. And from the descriptions I don't see how its "features" are different from the other social networks.
f2net 10y ago
You may like www.tagschat.com, it is the same concept, but web based. I am the founder and we are releasing the new version (exiting beta) in a few days: stay tuned! Meanwhile, you can subscribe!
overcast 10y ago
I've had this sentiment for a couple years now. I'm so sick of having to download an app for everything. I want a slick web version that isn't half-assed, and is responsive to all devices. This is my number one priority building any new application.
- flushandforget 10y ago
  I haven't a smart phone, but I did try Win 10, and have a Win 8.1 machine kicking about. I don't use either much. But what I do struggle with, is finding apps. Under Linux, my Applications Menu at least groups by category, and makes it a bit easier for me to find something even if I have forgotten the name. On Win 10 I'm totally lost. I'd fear I'd have a whole heap of apps, and have no idea what they are or how to get to them. In some ways it's the same with websites! I guess I could tag them or add them to a bookmark folder or something.
  - overcast 10y ago
    Exactly. You know what works for me to find "apps", the ubiquitous search engine. That should bring me to the web version of whatever you're selling me. If I feel it warrants enough to install another silly app, then maybe I will. But for now, the web version better be easily found, and full featured.
    - flushandforget 10y ago
      I know a few people that never install apps on their phones. Because they have no clue re: security, whether the app has access to this or that or whatever. I spoke to a family member and he says to me I've got this bus app for route X. And I say what, you've got an app for your local bus route, and he says yes. I then asked what was wrong with the website?
      - lucb1e 10y ago
        Same here. There is often no functional difference between a shortcut (from your homescreen) to the mobile website and the official app, so that's what I do. Goodbye cluttering downloads, permission systems, etc. It will need to load a few kilobytes of javascript extra upon every use (if caching doesn't solve that already), but I think that's totally worth it.
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
I'm out as well due to the lack of a web version, although not exactly for the same particular reasons as you. I'm OK with native apps in my phone, but (1) I refuse the need to look at a small screen and type on a crapy on-screen keyboard when I'm sitting in front of my PC with large screen and keyboard like 10 hours a day, and (2) my Android phone with 16G internal storage has long ran out of storage for apps (the stupid inflexibility of the system and many apps refusing to go to the SD card plays a role here) and I'm already keeping to the strictly necessary, there are apps that I actually liked and used but I had to delete them. There are plenty of reasons to not want to use a mobile-only social network. I really like the concept of meeting new people based on interests (it's something I've been missing since ICQ, which had that functionality, was replaced with inferior alternatives like MSN messenger) but there's no way I'm getting into this mobile-only train for applications that don't have any reason to be mobile only.
stronglikedan 10y ago
That is the one thing I absolutely hate about Amazon's Alexa app. They have a super-fast browser version that, to date, has executed everything flawlessly for me with speed and precision. Then there's the native Android app - a slow, clunky, POS (when it even starts properly - usually after 30 seconds of watching a spinning circle icon). But hey, guess what? Trying to access the great browser version from your 1080p mobile device with a fully capable web browser? NOPE! Just a button to download the POS native app. Really, Amazon, I expected better.
dahart 10y ago
> no web version means I won't bother at all. They are building a web version, they're just doing mobile first. And that may be a pretty smart move. "You will work with our product designers, mobile engineers, and backend engineers to create a distinct web version of our mobile offering." (http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/ http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/) Orkut was global, and in a global context, mobile devices may be more heavily used than laptop / desktop web. "Smartphone ownership rates have skyrocketed in many countries since 2013. This includes increases of over 25 percentage points among the total population in large emerging economies such as Turkey (+42 points), Malaysia (+34), Chile (+26) and Brazil (+26)." http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and... Even in the US, I see all the kids with mobile devices and controlled internet access. If you're shooting for the next generation of people, e.g., the young'uns, then mobile first is probably critical.
- brlewis 10y ago
  "They are building a web version, they're just doing mobile first" should be "They are building a web version, they're just doing native apps first" Doing mobile first can totally be web.
  - dahart 10y ago
    You're right, but "Mobile first" is the way they are describing themselves, it's the phrase used in the jobs link I posted. And I would personally interpret "mobile first" to imply native apps in just about any context, so I think it gets the point across.
    - brlewis 10y ago
      I would personally interpret "mobile first" to imply native apps in just about any context You're part of a growing minority who interprets it that way. Google search results for "mobile first" are still very web-focused today, but I'm concerned the native app community will usurp that phrase, confusing everybody. And while I'm speaking for the web community, apologies for usurping the word "responsive" and confusing everybody.
nilkn 10y ago
I still prefer native apps when they're well-designed. A well-designed, minimal native app almost always performs better than a well-designed, minimal mobile website in my experience. But a lot of major apps have become so bloated that their mobile website versions work better. Twitter is one example, but Facebook is another infamous one. I'm sure many folks on HN have went through the experience of realizing that it was the FB app that was draining their smartphone battery like crazy. That said, the lack of a website is still a dealbreaker for me in this case. I don't want to have to access a social network through my phone. I do understanding going mobile-first on a new social network, but I'm not really interested in jumping aboard until I can use it from my laptop/desktop. But that may not mean much in terms of the app's success. I'm probably just not in the target audience.
peterwwillis 10y ago
> no web version means I won't bother at all That's too bad. Lyft and Tinder users seem to be getting along without the web, though.
pzh 10y ago
Why would a web version be better than an app if you're using it on a phone? (Honest question, I'm just curious.) Most people say they dislike app clutter, but then they have to keep a browser bookmark (or bookmark icon) anyway, which is the same amount of clutter. The only reason I can see is that you'd have one less app annoying you with updates, but a browser version has its own set of problems--e.g. unreliable maintenance of state, inconsistencies between browsers, random breakages due to ad blockers kicking in, etc...
- geekamongus 10y ago
  Those issues (unreliable maintenance of state, inconsistencies between browsers) are for the developers to worry about, not the end user. Desktop versions should be as equally important as mobile, especially when you are talking about generating and sharing content.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Apps have access to things on your phone that web pages do not. Like he mentioned, web pages can't send push notifications. To the best of my knowledge, web pages can't run in the background. Web pages will also work on any device, even Windows Phone or Firefox OS or WebOS or Blackberry, etc. I don't have the Facebook app installed on my phone. Not for privacy reasons, not because the web page is better, but because the Facebook app was taking up over 300mb of my 16gb phone, and the only way I knew to get that space back was deleting the app. With a web page, I can get rid of all of its stored data and still be able to access the site. Steve Jobs was right, even if he was a bit early in his predictions. Web pages are better than apps in a lot of situations. Facebook doesn't need to be an app. Hello doesn't need to be an app. They just need good responsive web pages.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    > web pages can't send push notifications https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API > web pages can't run in the background Ok not the same at all, but you can use web workers for background threads: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API/Using_web_workers https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers... And the above have also been used to produce offline-first applications. Unfortunately Apple has been bad at supporting these new APIs—ironic considering the last part of your comment. Google has been the best at it.
asib 10y ago
I would reckon you're definitely in the minority. Think of an app like Snapchat - huge number of users who couldn't care less about the lack of a web app. Instagram has a web app, but I'd be curious to see how many users actually utilise it, in comparison to mobile app users. My guess is that mobile app users heavily outweigh web users. Instagram also chose to offer a restricted set of features on the web app, specifically to encourage using the mobile app. That's not to say that a web app is unnecessary. I reckon that the number of web users for an app like Instagram is sufficient to warrant the existence and maintenance of a web app. But I think that the majority of social network consumers are not concerned either way, and to delay a release because the web app is still being developed would be a mistake.
Tharkun 10y ago
Twitter Mobile is horrible. It's bloated, it frequently crashes my browser, it tries to do autocomplete of @handles but is slower than my touchscreen typing. In fact, Twitter Mobile is so bad that I'm considering installing an app to replace it.
- winterbe 10y ago
  Really? The new mobile Twitter site is super fast and reliable on my phone. The native app is still better but it gets really close in terms of performance and usability. However apps still have better OS integrations (notifications, sharing) and touch handling (swipe etc).
  - Tharkun 10y ago
    Really? It doesn't like my phone. And every time the train enters a tunnel, Twitter tells me my connexion is unavailable and ruins whatever I was doing at the time.
zodPod 10y ago
I think they misunderstood the "Mobile First" approach!
iMiiTH 10y ago
A lot of web applications perform really poorly on mobile and apps are made for that nice 'native' feeling. You also don't get push notifications or badges on the home screen. Mobile sites work for news sites and blogs, where you poll for content at your will, but for interactive applications, a mobile application that notifies you of interaction is a must in my opinion.
- weisk 10y ago
  Have you heard about Progressive Web Apps? They are bringing all those things you mention to the table: push notifications, background sync, offline access, home screen badge...
criley2 10y ago
>I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. Good choice, I've just tried their Android version and it's absolute bug-city to the extent that I'm unsure if they engaged in any real Android user testing / dog fooding at all. In onboarding, the crop function simply did not work at all, showing a hyper-zoomed version of the image and then discarding the view when creating the final image. In onboarding, twice (in three minutes total of usage) I was presented with a totally white screen. No UI. No back button functionality. Nothing on screen. Nothing to do. Only option: force close the app. It appears to happen after EVERY single step in onboarding is complete. Once after photo/basic profile, once after location. Yes, I was required to force close the app _twice_ in three minutes of usage. Criticism: Only 5 "personas"? Really? I was forced to unselect a number subjects very dear to me because apparently I'm too diverse for a social network???? And now the "join personas" button is failing, it attempts to bring up the onboarding menu but fails, dropping back to the already-completed personas menu over and over. I'll force close the app myself. If you wanted free QA, you could have at least been honest with us about this being a total beta test. I wonder if the developers are in this thread. I bet they all use iPhone... But since this is apparently released software, as a tester and developer myself I am deeply concerned with the state of your backend, based on the quality of your front end development.

raverbashing 10y ago

If you like mobile.twitter you might like dabr.eu Apart from the default bright pink color it's lovely (and this is configurable) I use it to keep twitter more work-friendly

TekMol 10y ago

Seconded. Is there a way to run Android apps in a VM on Linux? A VM for phone applications would be similar to a browser. A browser runs websites in a safe environment. A way to run apps in a safe environment would be nice.

pmontra 10y ago
Look at Genymotion, I'm using it on Ubuntu 16.04 to test Telegram and Messenger bots without having to do it on my phone. There are some hops to go through to install Google Play but they are documented. I'll post some links when I go back to my computer with my notes. Edit: instructions. I downloaded Genymotion from https://www.genymotion.com/pricing-and-licensing/ https://www.genymotion.com/pricing-and-licensing/ (Individual, Basic, which costs no money). It's enough to run Android but you don't have Google Play. I followed these general directions to install it https://inthecheesefactory.com/blog/how-to-install-google-services-on-genymotion/en https://inthecheesefactory.com/blog/how-to-install-google-se... However the filetrip link didn't work (and I don't know if I want to trust it) and the google apps failed to install. I googled and eventually downloaded these files: ARM to x86 translation: http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/general/guide-genymotion-play-store-supersu-t3396840 http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/general/guide-genymo... Google Play: https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=24591023225177410 https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=24591023225177410 (banks_dynamic_gapps) The latter is for Android 6 so you should run an Android 6 image on your emulated device. My computer is still fine after installing those two files in the Android emulator but I don't take responsibility. Don't know how verified they are.
xorcist 10y ago
Many. I've used Android-x86(.org) on KVM which worked so well I didn't pursue others. There is some semi-commercial fork called Remix OS that's more polished. If you only need to use an app and not the rest of the environment you can also run it as a Chrome plugin under ARC and not mess with virtualization at all.
- xenophonf 10y ago
  I can't connect to bdownload.fosshub.com, which hosts the Android-x86 images. Are those download links working for you?
  - opello 10y ago
    They also mirror releases to Sourceforge: https://sourceforge.net/projects/android-x86/files/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/android-x86/files/
    - xenophonf 10y ago
      Thank you, both!
  - xorcist 10y ago
    Fosshub was owned and trojaned some days ago, be careful with that site. The other download link should work (there are checksums in release notes).
ewzimm 10y ago
There are multiple ways to run phone apps in a VM on Linux. If you just want to try something, the quickest would be to download Android Studio or Eclipse and use the built-in VM meant for development.
hobo_mark 10y ago
There is a way to run Android apps in Chrome [1], which I refused to believe until I tried it with a random APK and worked perfectly. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc

nvk 10y ago

Not just that, it also requires a phone number just to get started.

iMiiTH 10y ago
I wish all social networks were like this, it would cut down on bots and spam significantly.

jaxondu 10y ago

Bad move for not having a web version. I just don't feel like downloading apps nowadays. A few of my friends are also like that.

whatever_dude 10y ago
You're probably not the target audience. I'd bet ~98% of the people on HN aren't. The app is aiming at the Instagram, Snapchat crowd. Instagram didn't have a web front until recently, Snapchat still doesn't.
- Kadin 10y ago
  I have no idea who they think they're targeting but there's still a huge amount of friction involved in getting users to install an app. I don't think that a younger audience is immune to that.
  - whatever_dude 10y ago
    Have you seen kids using Instagram and (especially) SnapChat? Younger generations have a very different relationship to their devices than someone born, say, in the 70's or 80's has. They care very little about websites.
    - mbrock 10y ago
      Instagram and Snapchat made names for themselves by being novel, simple, immediate... You can explain in one sentence to your friends what's cool about them: "you can make your photos look great and see your friend's photos" and "you send quick selfies and they're deleted in like ten seconds so you don't have to care so much". This hello.com seems like a much broader kind of "social network" that I would have a hard time getting any of my friends or family to try, I think.
djsumdog 10y ago
No web version which also means there's probably noting really new or revolutionary. No federation. Not open. I've been messing with some of the old federated projects that never seemed to go anywhere. GNU Social, Diaosapra, etc. I'd like to just get a few nerd friends on one, just to say I'm at least trying to get away from the current model. Hello just looks like another ello.

lucasnemeth 10y ago

They seem to be building a web version, they are hiring for this: http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/index.html#frontend_swe http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/index.html#frontend_swe I think they just thought mobile was priority and are launching a MVP before having the web version...

apatters 10y ago

If the concept here is a social network which brings us closer to people who have similar interests and are geographically close to us then that is really cool. But a couple things don't feel right to me. 1) No web app - honestly I'm over installing apps and being bound to my phone. You lost me here. 2) A bit of 'wall of text' explaining what this is and I appreciate that the orkut.com bit is heartfelt, but this is not the best way to pull me in. 3) No actual content from the network that I can browse on the web to understand through immersion (this is what is needed instead of or to supplement the about text). 4) 'loves not likes' - Without delivering on the other bullets here I didn't connect with the product and therefore this sounded tacky. 5) The best of the jots - makes me feel maybe this is instagram? It just feels that the product planner is checked out or there hasn't been much conversation with the market or something. I guess I'd understand a lot better if I installed the app and signed up, but not going to, I shouldn't have to jump through those hoops just to understand the product. Admittedly I am just an average curious passerby with a short attention span here so my $0.02 is worth just that, $0.02. But hello.com could be onboarding people a lot more effectively in my opinion. Hate to just parrot everyone else but having no web app is the root of all of these issues I think. Orkut was great and I'm over FB/Twitter, hope this does well.

vidarh 10y ago
Re #2, consider that hello.com is the landing page for the app. The page linked here is a page with a different purpose that most potential users won't see.

spyder 10y ago

And even the android app is limited to "Android 5.0 and up" and to a few countries and it has low ratings and reviews from users. So it looks like a really weak "launch" :(. And from the descriptions I don't see how its "features" are different from the other social networks.

f2net 10y ago

You may like www.tagschat.com, it is the same concept, but web based. I am the founder and we are releasing the new version (exiting beta) in a few days: stay tuned! Meanwhile, you can subscribe!

overcast 10y ago

I've had this sentiment for a couple years now. I'm so sick of having to download an app for everything. I want a slick web version that isn't half-assed, and is responsive to all devices. This is my number one priority building any new application.

flushandforget 10y ago
I haven't a smart phone, but I did try Win 10, and have a Win 8.1 machine kicking about. I don't use either much. But what I do struggle with, is finding apps. Under Linux, my Applications Menu at least groups by category, and makes it a bit easier for me to find something even if I have forgotten the name. On Win 10 I'm totally lost. I'd fear I'd have a whole heap of apps, and have no idea what they are or how to get to them. In some ways it's the same with websites! I guess I could tag them or add them to a bookmark folder or something.
- overcast 10y ago
  Exactly. You know what works for me to find "apps", the ubiquitous search engine. That should bring me to the web version of whatever you're selling me. If I feel it warrants enough to install another silly app, then maybe I will. But for now, the web version better be easily found, and full featured.
  - flushandforget 10y ago
    I know a few people that never install apps on their phones. Because they have no clue re: security, whether the app has access to this or that or whatever. I spoke to a family member and he says to me I've got this bus app for route X. And I say what, you've got an app for your local bus route, and he says yes. I then asked what was wrong with the website?
    - lucb1e 10y ago
      Same here. There is often no functional difference between a shortcut (from your homescreen) to the mobile website and the official app, so that's what I do. Goodbye cluttering downloads, permission systems, etc. It will need to load a few kilobytes of javascript extra upon every use (if caching doesn't solve that already), but I think that's totally worth it.

Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago

I'm out as well due to the lack of a web version, although not exactly for the same particular reasons as you. I'm OK with native apps in my phone, but (1) I refuse the need to look at a small screen and type on a crapy on-screen keyboard when I'm sitting in front of my PC with large screen and keyboard like 10 hours a day, and (2) my Android phone with 16G internal storage has long ran out of storage for apps (the stupid inflexibility of the system and many apps refusing to go to the SD card plays a role here) and I'm already keeping to the strictly necessary, there are apps that I actually liked and used but I had to delete them. There are plenty of reasons to not want to use a mobile-only social network. I really like the concept of meeting new people based on interests (it's something I've been missing since ICQ, which had that functionality, was replaced with inferior alternatives like MSN messenger) but there's no way I'm getting into this mobile-only train for applications that don't have any reason to be mobile only.

stronglikedan 10y ago

That is the one thing I absolutely hate about Amazon's Alexa app. They have a super-fast browser version that, to date, has executed everything flawlessly for me with speed and precision. Then there's the native Android app - a slow, clunky, POS (when it even starts properly - usually after 30 seconds of watching a spinning circle icon). But hey, guess what? Trying to access the great browser version from your 1080p mobile device with a fully capable web browser? NOPE! Just a button to download the POS native app. Really, Amazon, I expected better.

dahart 10y ago

> no web version means I won't bother at all. They are building a web version, they're just doing mobile first. And that may be a pretty smart move. "You will work with our product designers, mobile engineers, and backend engineers to create a distinct web version of our mobile offering." (http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/ http://www.hello.com/en/jobs/) Orkut was global, and in a global context, mobile devices may be more heavily used than laptop / desktop web. "Smartphone ownership rates have skyrocketed in many countries since 2013. This includes increases of over 25 percentage points among the total population in large emerging economies such as Turkey (+42 points), Malaysia (+34), Chile (+26) and Brazil (+26)." http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and... Even in the US, I see all the kids with mobile devices and controlled internet access. If you're shooting for the next generation of people, e.g., the young'uns, then mobile first is probably critical.

brlewis 10y ago
"They are building a web version, they're just doing mobile first" should be "They are building a web version, they're just doing native apps first" Doing mobile first can totally be web.
- dahart 10y ago
  You're right, but "Mobile first" is the way they are describing themselves, it's the phrase used in the jobs link I posted. And I would personally interpret "mobile first" to imply native apps in just about any context, so I think it gets the point across.
  - brlewis 10y ago
    I would personally interpret "mobile first" to imply native apps in just about any context You're part of a growing minority who interprets it that way. Google search results for "mobile first" are still very web-focused today, but I'm concerned the native app community will usurp that phrase, confusing everybody. And while I'm speaking for the web community, apologies for usurping the word "responsive" and confusing everybody.

nilkn 10y ago

I still prefer native apps when they're well-designed. A well-designed, minimal native app almost always performs better than a well-designed, minimal mobile website in my experience. But a lot of major apps have become so bloated that their mobile website versions work better. Twitter is one example, but Facebook is another infamous one. I'm sure many folks on HN have went through the experience of realizing that it was the FB app that was draining their smartphone battery like crazy. That said, the lack of a website is still a dealbreaker for me in this case. I don't want to have to access a social network through my phone. I do understanding going mobile-first on a new social network, but I'm not really interested in jumping aboard until I can use it from my laptop/desktop. But that may not mean much in terms of the app's success. I'm probably just not in the target audience.

peterwwillis 10y ago

> no web version means I won't bother at all That's too bad. Lyft and Tinder users seem to be getting along without the web, though.

pzh 10y ago

Why would a web version be better than an app if you're using it on a phone? (Honest question, I'm just curious.) Most people say they dislike app clutter, but then they have to keep a browser bookmark (or bookmark icon) anyway, which is the same amount of clutter. The only reason I can see is that you'd have one less app annoying you with updates, but a browser version has its own set of problems--e.g. unreliable maintenance of state, inconsistencies between browsers, random breakages due to ad blockers kicking in, etc...

geekamongus 10y ago
Those issues (unreliable maintenance of state, inconsistencies between browsers) are for the developers to worry about, not the end user. Desktop versions should be as equally important as mobile, especially when you are talking about generating and sharing content.
freehunter 10y ago
Apps have access to things on your phone that web pages do not. Like he mentioned, web pages can't send push notifications. To the best of my knowledge, web pages can't run in the background. Web pages will also work on any device, even Windows Phone or Firefox OS or WebOS or Blackberry, etc. I don't have the Facebook app installed on my phone. Not for privacy reasons, not because the web page is better, but because the Facebook app was taking up over 300mb of my 16gb phone, and the only way I knew to get that space back was deleting the app. With a web page, I can get rid of all of its stored data and still be able to access the site. Steve Jobs was right, even if he was a bit early in his predictions. Web pages are better than apps in a lot of situations. Facebook doesn't need to be an app. Hello doesn't need to be an app. They just need good responsive web pages.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  > web pages can't send push notifications https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API > web pages can't run in the background Ok not the same at all, but you can use web workers for background threads: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API/Using_web_workers https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers... And the above have also been used to produce offline-first applications. Unfortunately Apple has been bad at supporting these new APIs—ironic considering the last part of your comment. Google has been the best at it.

asib 10y ago

I would reckon you're definitely in the minority. Think of an app like Snapchat - huge number of users who couldn't care less about the lack of a web app. Instagram has a web app, but I'd be curious to see how many users actually utilise it, in comparison to mobile app users. My guess is that mobile app users heavily outweigh web users. Instagram also chose to offer a restricted set of features on the web app, specifically to encourage using the mobile app. That's not to say that a web app is unnecessary. I reckon that the number of web users for an app like Instagram is sufficient to warrant the existence and maintenance of a web app. But I think that the majority of social network consumers are not concerned either way, and to delay a release because the web app is still being developed would be a mistake.

Tharkun 10y ago

Twitter Mobile is horrible. It's bloated, it frequently crashes my browser, it tries to do autocomplete of @handles but is slower than my touchscreen typing. In fact, Twitter Mobile is so bad that I'm considering installing an app to replace it.

winterbe 10y ago
Really? The new mobile Twitter site is super fast and reliable on my phone. The native app is still better but it gets really close in terms of performance and usability. However apps still have better OS integrations (notifications, sharing) and touch handling (swipe etc).
- Tharkun 10y ago
  Really? It doesn't like my phone. And every time the train enters a tunnel, Twitter tells me my connexion is unavailable and ruins whatever I was doing at the time.

zodPod 10y ago

I think they misunderstood the "Mobile First" approach!

iMiiTH 10y ago

A lot of web applications perform really poorly on mobile and apps are made for that nice 'native' feeling. You also don't get push notifications or badges on the home screen. Mobile sites work for news sites and blogs, where you poll for content at your will, but for interactive applications, a mobile application that notifies you of interaction is a must in my opinion.

weisk 10y ago
Have you heard about Progressive Web Apps? They are bringing all those things you mention to the table: push notifications, background sync, offline access, home screen badge...

criley2 10y ago

>I'm echoing what others are saying: no web version means I won't bother at all. Good choice, I've just tried their Android version and it's absolute bug-city to the extent that I'm unsure if they engaged in any real Android user testing / dog fooding at all. In onboarding, the crop function simply did not work at all, showing a hyper-zoomed version of the image and then discarding the view when creating the final image. In onboarding, twice (in three minutes total of usage) I was presented with a totally white screen. No UI. No back button functionality. Nothing on screen. Nothing to do. Only option: force close the app. It appears to happen after EVERY single step in onboarding is complete. Once after photo/basic profile, once after location. Yes, I was required to force close the app _twice_ in three minutes of usage. Criticism: Only 5 "personas"? Really? I was forced to unselect a number subjects very dear to me because apparently I'm too diverse for a social network???? And now the "join personas" button is failing, it attempts to bring up the onboarding menu but fails, dropping back to the already-completed personas menu over and over. I'll force close the app myself. If you wanted free QA, you could have at least been honest with us about this being a total beta test. I wonder if the developers are in this thread. I bet they all use iPhone... But since this is apparently released software, as a tester and developer myself I am deeply concerned with the state of your backend, based on the quality of your front end development.