3 ms·
Thinking of it as an app install feels like an anti-pattern. Like when you turn on the Xbox for a quick five minute play, and have to sit through a 15 minute up
by Isofarro 10y ago
Thinking of it as an app install feels like an anti-pattern. Like when you turn on the Xbox for a quick five minute play, and have to sit through a 15 minute update before you can even do anything. It's a bad user experience.
This approach was a commercial failure on the native platform level (those Office-like app suites with network install of components each time you needed them). It was also a commercial failure on the "build my desktop from scratch when I boot up" environments.
It yet another tick in the "does not belong in a browser" list.
Perhaps Single Page Applications need to run inside a window where there's no browser navigation bar, no url bar. Stripped down so far it's not actually a functioning browser. That feels very much like a native GUI library at that point. Except for that ludicrous notion of the app needing to be installed each time the chrome/window is launched.
I can't see how "install the app each time you land on this website" is competitive against native's "install this app once, and run many times" approach.
- ClayFerguson 10y agoA well-designed web app will have a version number embedded in the filename(s) of the large file(s), (like the filename of a minified JavaScript file containing the entire app) so that upon first visit to the page the app is downloaded and "installed" (cached), but on subsequent visits your browser grabs the file from its local cache. This is really a seamless and excellent form of deployment, and when done correctly the browser only waits for new downloads when a new "version" of the app has been deployed to the server. So well written SPAs like meta64 do have the "install this app once, and run many times" behavior.