2 ms·

People use Facebook in the browser because Facebook is a website that happened to have a messenger bolted on. Electron apps aren't relevant – I'm talking about

People use Facebook in the browser because Facebook is a website that happened to have a messenger bolted on. Electron apps aren't relevant – I'm talking about the user experience, not the underlying technology. As far as the user is concerned, Slack is a standalone application.

laumars 10y ago
> People use Facebook in the browser because Facebook is a website that happened to have a messenger bolted on. The point isn't why they use a browser. The point is that they do use a browser. So if they're doing it already then the idea of proper IM integration along a side panel is potentially a favourable one for a great many people. > Electron apps aren't relevant – I'm talking about the user experience, not the underlying technology. As far as the user is concerned, Slack is a standalone application. I know it's a standalone application but the relevance is down to the performance improvements you'd gain from integrating that into Opera (and thus sharing resources) rather than spinning up a new instance of Blink for each "application". The idea of that is quite appealing to me though sadly it looks like Slack support isn't available yet.
- JimDabell 10y ago
  > The point isn't why they use a browser. The point is that they do use a browser. If you ask somebody why they are using Facebook in their browser, they'll tell you that it's because that's how you use Facebook Messenger. They won't tell you that it's because they want to message and surf the web at the same time. In fact it's terrible for this – Messenger is stuck on the Facebook site, so if you navigate away, it's either hidden away in a separate tab or gone altogether. People quite clearly don't use Facebook Messenger in a browser because they want to surf and message at the same time, which is quite clearly relevant to the questions of "why would I want this?" and "what value does this have as a product?". > I know it's a standalone application but the relevance is down to the performance improvements you'd gain from integrating that into Opera I don't think many people wish for better performance out of their messenger applications, certainly not enough to switch browser over, which again, makes me wonder what the market for this is.
  - laumars 10y ago
    > "If you ask somebody why they are using Facebook in their browser, they'll tell you that it's because that's how you use Facebook Messenger. They won't tell you that it's because they want to message and surf the web at the same time. In fact it's terrible for this – Messenger is stuck on the Facebook site, so if you navigate away, it's either hidden away in a separate tab or gone altogether." ...which is why Opera's solution is better ;) People don't have to use a browser by the way. There are already desktop clients for Messenger (though most of which people are unaware of and/or require a fair bit of setting up) and popular apps specifically for Messenger on mobile phones and tablets. But the fact remains that many people do still use the web interface. Usually just because it's quicker and easier. Opera's solution ticks all of those boxes while also solving your complaint about how the current web solution sucks. > I don't think many people wish for better performance out of their messenger applications, certainly not enough to switch browser over, which again, makes me wonder what the market for this is. Most people wouldn't. But then most people call a browser "the internet" so it's hardly surprising they don't understand what Electron is. However given the millions of techies who do understand, Opera could still make a decent business targeting us. And if we switch then there's a chance we might encourage our non-techie friends and family to switch as well (lets face it, how often are we called upon for free technical support?). This is all hypothetical of course but at least Opera are trying out some new ideas in UI/UX rather than building yet another Chrome-clone (even Firefox these days feels like another Chrome). To be frank, your complaints sound a lot like "I hate this feature ergo it's stupid and nobody will use it". I say kudos to Opera for trying to do things a little differently. If it works then that's great for Opera, if it doesn't then what difference does it make to you? Either way new ideas - even ones as evolutionary as this one - have always been met with naysayers. Sometimes they're proven right. However frequently they've also been proven wrong (remember the HN thread about Dropbox?). I've not given my personal opinion on this yet so I'll close with that: With the way how technology is moving, I think having IMs inside the browser is an attractive idea. If I can then do away with Electron then it's doubly attractive. And if I can do away with having half a dozen different IM clients and run it all from one browser then I would close my libpurple-compatible client in a heartbeat and switch to Opera.
    - 10y ago

laumars 10y ago

> People use Facebook in the browser because Facebook is a website that happened to have a messenger bolted on. The point isn't why they use a browser. The point is that they do use a browser. So if they're doing it already then the idea of proper IM integration along a side panel is potentially a favourable one for a great many people. > Electron apps aren't relevant – I'm talking about the user experience, not the underlying technology. As far as the user is concerned, Slack is a standalone application. I know it's a standalone application but the relevance is down to the performance improvements you'd gain from integrating that into Opera (and thus sharing resources) rather than spinning up a new instance of Blink for each "application". The idea of that is quite appealing to me though sadly it looks like Slack support isn't available yet.

JimDabell 10y ago
> The point isn't why they use a browser. The point is that they do use a browser. If you ask somebody why they are using Facebook in their browser, they'll tell you that it's because that's how you use Facebook Messenger. They won't tell you that it's because they want to message and surf the web at the same time. In fact it's terrible for this – Messenger is stuck on the Facebook site, so if you navigate away, it's either hidden away in a separate tab or gone altogether. People quite clearly don't use Facebook Messenger in a browser because they want to surf and message at the same time, which is quite clearly relevant to the questions of "why would I want this?" and "what value does this have as a product?". > I know it's a standalone application but the relevance is down to the performance improvements you'd gain from integrating that into Opera I don't think many people wish for better performance out of their messenger applications, certainly not enough to switch browser over, which again, makes me wonder what the market for this is.
- laumars 10y ago
  > "If you ask somebody why they are using Facebook in their browser, they'll tell you that it's because that's how you use Facebook Messenger. They won't tell you that it's because they want to message and surf the web at the same time. In fact it's terrible for this – Messenger is stuck on the Facebook site, so if you navigate away, it's either hidden away in a separate tab or gone altogether." ...which is why Opera's solution is better ;) People don't have to use a browser by the way. There are already desktop clients for Messenger (though most of which people are unaware of and/or require a fair bit of setting up) and popular apps specifically for Messenger on mobile phones and tablets. But the fact remains that many people do still use the web interface. Usually just because it's quicker and easier. Opera's solution ticks all of those boxes while also solving your complaint about how the current web solution sucks. > I don't think many people wish for better performance out of their messenger applications, certainly not enough to switch browser over, which again, makes me wonder what the market for this is. Most people wouldn't. But then most people call a browser "the internet" so it's hardly surprising they don't understand what Electron is. However given the millions of techies who do understand, Opera could still make a decent business targeting us. And if we switch then there's a chance we might encourage our non-techie friends and family to switch as well (lets face it, how often are we called upon for free technical support?). This is all hypothetical of course but at least Opera are trying out some new ideas in UI/UX rather than building yet another Chrome-clone (even Firefox these days feels like another Chrome). To be frank, your complaints sound a lot like "I hate this feature ergo it's stupid and nobody will use it". I say kudos to Opera for trying to do things a little differently. If it works then that's great for Opera, if it doesn't then what difference does it make to you? Either way new ideas - even ones as evolutionary as this one - have always been met with naysayers. Sometimes they're proven right. However frequently they've also been proven wrong (remember the HN thread about Dropbox?). I've not given my personal opinion on this yet so I'll close with that: With the way how technology is moving, I think having IMs inside the browser is an attractive idea. If I can then do away with Electron then it's doubly attractive. And if I can do away with having half a dozen different IM clients and run it all from one browser then I would close my libpurple-compatible client in a heartbeat and switch to Opera.
  - 10y ago