3 ms·
> just tell the people to get proper devices That seems like a great way to have no users. An incredibly obvious reason would be that it is the largest applic
by mkohlmyr 9y ago
> just tell the people to get proper devices
That seems like a great way to have no users.
An incredibly obvious reason would be that it is the largest application delivery platform with the highest level of user familiarity and comfort.
If you compare two services where one of them offers you a direct login to the app and the other offers you a 200MB download, most people will choose to log in to a website. It's a better user experience. Especially for things that will see infrequent use.
- madez 9y agoIf you _only_ care about the number of users, then I see a point. However, at least for non-commercial programs, why care at all about the number of users? The scenario you are drawing is not a proper comparison. There is no reason why a native toolkit couldn't support rendering the program before it's fully loaded, so I see no reason a native program would need more data transfer upfront than a JavaScript one. Though I think too that being prompted to download the program, then install it and find the way to run it can be cumbersome, but the solution to this is to not do it this way. Why not integrate with the native way to obtain applications and make it transparent and convenient for the user? After all, I think there might be fundamentally different goals when developing a software, and that explains the difference. If one has accepted advertisement-based financing of projects, then them and I would probably disagree in many ways. I think users devices must only and exclusively work for the user.