3 ms·
My post used the term "application", but I could have written the same thing using the term "website" instead. I don't think using 1,000 different websites is
by miguelrochefort 9y ago
My post used the term "application", but I could have written the same thing using the term "website" instead.
I don't think using 1,000 different websites is more sustainable than using 1,000 different applications. The same problems I listed apply in both cases.
We need to completely dissociate the client/interface from the service provider.
- jaclaz 9y agoThat may be a further step, but right now the difference (which I see as huge) is that a link/bookmark (that can actually be re-discovered in no time - if not saved - via Search Engine) takes a few bytes of the (precious, limited in size) storage of my device while the stupid app takes Kilobytes or Megabytes. Moreover, whilst the site can be found 99.99% of times through a quick search on a search engine, the installed app cannot (unless I miss something) if you don't remember how the stupid icon/logo looks like. In any case I see lots of people swiping pages and pages before - maybe - finding the stupid app they are looking for. BTW, it is not an entirely "new" thing, on more traditional desktops each and every stupid program (actually its installer) will try to convince you to add an icon/shortcut on the desktop, I have seen desktops with (literally) several tens of such shortcuts, possibly more, each with a "distinctive" icon. Android or IOS do the same, but due to the limited size of the screen you can have at the most - say - 16 or 25 icons per page, you need to swipe to the next page, visually scan for the icon, miss it, go ahead, go back, etc.