4 ms·

> That Spotify, Whatsapp and Slack don't have native apps a disgrace beyond comprehension Pretty easy to comprehend why you wouldn't burn more developer resour

> That Spotify, Whatsapp and Slack don't have native apps a disgrace beyond comprehension Pretty easy to comprehend why you wouldn't burn more developer resources than necessary actually. Try to set aside your own dev bias towards 'non-native' and consider what the average users of those apps think. They don't care the apps are non-native, they don't even know what that means.

tjoff 9y ago
> Pretty easy to comprehend why you wouldn't burn more developer resources than necessary actually. No, it is incredibly short sighted and in the long run Spotify in particular must have spent a ridiculous amount of effort ironing out bugs and issues (this often takes many many months) that are a consequence of unnecessary cross-platform efforts. The average user don't care about native and non-native. But they do absolutely care about performance, look and feel.
- allover 9y ago
  Why is it short-sighted? It's easier to transition from the (presumably) single code-base they have now to build specialised native apps later, if there's some expected pay-off, no? But if they'd had separate code-bases all this time the maintenance effort to date would have been an order of magnitude higher. And consolidating to a single codebase from that would be a nightmare (should some new cross-platform toolkit mature). > The average user don't care about native and non-native. But they do absolutely care about performance, look and feel. And I've never heard anyone in my office (which has lots of non-devs) complain about Spotify's UI when they're changing the office music. Search for a song or playlist, play ... works fine as far as they're concerned. Show me the evidence average users think there's a problem.
tripzilch 9y ago
> consider what the average users of those apps think. They don't care the apps are non-native, they don't even know what that means. Just because the average user is unaware the shitty UX, performance or battery-draining is your app's fault, doesn't make it a good or professional choice. It means you can get away with it, because the user is unaware there was a choice, who's making it, and based on what criteria.

tjoff 9y ago

> Pretty easy to comprehend why you wouldn't burn more developer resources than necessary actually. No, it is incredibly short sighted and in the long run Spotify in particular must have spent a ridiculous amount of effort ironing out bugs and issues (this often takes many many months) that are a consequence of unnecessary cross-platform efforts. The average user don't care about native and non-native. But they do absolutely care about performance, look and feel.

allover 9y ago
Why is it short-sighted? It's easier to transition from the (presumably) single code-base they have now to build specialised native apps later, if there's some expected pay-off, no? But if they'd had separate code-bases all this time the maintenance effort to date would have been an order of magnitude higher. And consolidating to a single codebase from that would be a nightmare (should some new cross-platform toolkit mature). > The average user don't care about native and non-native. But they do absolutely care about performance, look and feel. And I've never heard anyone in my office (which has lots of non-devs) complain about Spotify's UI when they're changing the office music. Search for a song or playlist, play ... works fine as far as they're concerned. Show me the evidence average users think there's a problem.

tripzilch 9y ago

> consider what the average users of those apps think. They don't care the apps are non-native, they don't even know what that means. Just because the average user is unaware the shitty UX, performance or battery-draining is your app's fault, doesn't make it a good or professional choice. It means you can get away with it, because the user is unaware there was a choice, who's making it, and based on what criteria.