3 ms·

> Using apps instead of websites we're killing the whole concept of making information and services available using a standard protocol I think the interesting

by m12k 9y ago

> Using apps instead of websites we're killing the whole concept of making information and services available using a standard protocol I think the interesting thing to note here is that for most end users a standard protocol is not nearly as appealing as a standard user interface. Like how most iOS apps follow common navigation paradigms, so users don't need to spend time learning each new one. And how people tend to prefer buying things on Amazon instead of any random webshop. And how WeChat has almost become a little web of its own with custom chat UIs for e.g. ordering pizza. If open software for consumers is ever to stop being beaten by these walled gardens, it needs to get a ton more UX people involved and focus on the end user UX, not just the technical implementation.

FussyZeus 9y ago
IMHO I think you've hit the nail on the head. iOS main attraction for many users I know is the simplicity. You can complain all day about Apple's guidelines and iron fist enforcement, and I'd occasionally agree with you too, probably many times. Simple fact is though that outside the walled garden everyone complains about is a jungle of terrible UX, laggy interfaces, slow loading web pages dumping megabytes of trackers and advertising through a connection you're paying for. I'm not saying the App Store is perfect, not by a country mile is it. I'm just saying if you compare it to the Play store, and the wider Internet, holy moly do walled gardens look nice.
floatboth 9y ago
One of the most appealing things for end users is instant loading. That's why apps are preferred on mobile, but websites on desktop.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  And branding. If an user downloads your app he puts an icon with your logo on his phone screen, possibly near other people watching. That doesn't happen when he taps on a browser icon. Not to mention that he also executes your code on his phone, code that almost always will ask for full access to media and contacts to be installed.
squarefoot 9y ago
"I think the interesting thing to note here is that for most end users a standard protocol is not nearly as appealing as a standard user interface." That is very true too. I often wondered what would have happened had someone created say 10 years ago an email client with strict protocol compatibility but employing an higher abstraction layer where discussions/attaches are managed automatically just like in a Whatsapp chat (chat -> mail list) using a similar UI. Probably most users would have rejected the idea because they had no intention to learn a new thing nobody was using. So, back to square one.

by m12k 9y ago

FussyZeus 9y ago

IMHO I think you've hit the nail on the head. iOS main attraction for many users I know is the simplicity. You can complain all day about Apple's guidelines and iron fist enforcement, and I'd occasionally agree with you too, probably many times. Simple fact is though that outside the walled garden everyone complains about is a jungle of terrible UX, laggy interfaces, slow loading web pages dumping megabytes of trackers and advertising through a connection you're paying for. I'm not saying the App Store is perfect, not by a country mile is it. I'm just saying if you compare it to the Play store, and the wider Internet, holy moly do walled gardens look nice.

floatboth 9y ago

One of the most appealing things for end users is instant loading. That's why apps are preferred on mobile, but websites on desktop.

squarefoot 9y ago
And branding. If an user downloads your app he puts an icon with your logo on his phone screen, possibly near other people watching. That doesn't happen when he taps on a browser icon. Not to mention that he also executes your code on his phone, code that almost always will ask for full access to media and contacts to be installed.

squarefoot 9y ago

"I think the interesting thing to note here is that for most end users a standard protocol is not nearly as appealing as a standard user interface." That is very true too. I often wondered what would have happened had someone created say 10 years ago an email client with strict protocol compatibility but employing an higher abstraction layer where discussions/attaches are managed automatically just like in a Whatsapp chat (chat -> mail list) using a similar UI. Probably most users would have rejected the idea because they had no intention to learn a new thing nobody was using. So, back to square one.