20 ms·

From a user perspective, this is why I love iOS. * Barrier to entry. If your project is more than a hobby, you can jump through a couple hoops to reach the iOS

From a user perspective, this is why I love iOS. * Barrier to entry. If your project is more than a hobby, you can jump through a couple hoops to reach the iOS userbase. If the difference between $99 and $25 is make-or-break, you're probably trying to publish a hobby/low quality app anyways. There is a reason the Microsoft Store and Google Play are absolutely filled with trash, and this is part of it. * Forcing you to use native controls. Thank god. I hate webapps. The only people who like webapps and their encroachment on good, native apps are webapp developers because it allows them to use their skillset to build something they don't know how to build. Everyone else wants native apps back, even if they don't know it. Case and point: the hatred for all the apps moving to Electron and the ridiculous amount of resources they consume. Most people don't know what Electron is, but they can tell you how much they hate the new Skype. * Requiring a Mac. This is similar to the "barrier to entry" one above, but seriously. I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. Software development is already very, very easy. The barrier to wide distribution is almost nothing. This is an extremely developer-centric perspective, which is fair, but at the end of the day, your users pay the bills and it's hard to be developer-first without also being user-hostile. This strikes me as the analysis of a developer I would never support, because they care far more about making everything as easy as possible for them rather than making the experience good for me. It's important to remember that while you are doing some consuming, you aren't the customer in this equation. The users are.

davidgl 8y ago
totally agree, Apple want quality not quantity, and to protect their users (so they are happy to pay a premium)
judah 8y ago
Controls: It doesn't force me to use native controls. :-) My web app today is still using the free and opened web, and all the goodness that comes with that, for UI and code. Requiring a Mac: Now you've met one. I built a halfway decent iOS app, and I don't want to spend $7000 on a Mac and its crappy dev tools and frameworks. I've poured nearly 7 years of work into user experience. I don't need to redo all that for Apple's closed, proprietary platform.
- rolha-capoeira 8y ago
  $7000? Your bias is showing. You can buy a Mac for <$1000 and it's perfectly capable of developing most apps.
  - judah 8y ago
    Yes, I'm using hyperbole. :-) Even $1000 to build a free app is too much. (That said, going to Apple.com and clicking Mac shows me the base model for $4999.00 [0]) What happened to cross-platform apps? Why is it that Google and Microsoft are champions of the free and opened web, and even cross-platform dev tools for web development, while Apple is holding back progress? I think the reason is their business is jeopardized by the free and open web, just as Microsoft was in the late 1990s. [0}: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro
    - waterside81 8y ago
      You linked to an iMac Pro, a high-end desktop, not a MacBook. Entry level MacBook is 1299
    - rolha-capoeira 8y ago
      First you said "$7000 on a Mac", then I said "You can buy a Mac for <$1000", then you said "Macbook shows me the base model for $4999.00" and you linked to an iMac Pro.
    - eropple 8y ago
      "Clicking Macbook shows me an iMac Pro" Yeah, no, it actually literally doesn't. There's no "Macbook" button on Apple's site. There's a Mac button. The Mac page then shows you a range of Macs, from the Macbook to the Mac mini, at the top of the screen. they are showing you the iMac Pro--their halo-effect product and newest release--on the Mac landing page; that's not the same thing and it is dishonest to assert that it is. Open standards are good. (The open web, whatever. I use React Native, because I like writing applications that feel responsive.) Open standard thumping as a proxy for weird platform fandoms is really not. Stop.
tomger 8y ago
Most of your arguments are subjective and anecdotal. It’s also “case in point.”
Grae 8y ago
>If the difference between $99 and $25 is make-or-break, you're probably trying to publish a hobby/low quality app anyways. Or maybe you live in a situation where $74 USD is a meaningful barrier to accessing a market. >The only people who like webapps and their encroachment on good, native apps are webapp developers because it allows them to use their skillset to build something they don't know how to build. You're excluding people and organizations who want to maintain a single codebase. >I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. My takeaway from this is that you've not met a lot of developers outside the U.S. or who have ethical concerns about mandatory hardware / software purchases as prerequisite to market access.
- peoplewindow 8y ago
  Or maybe you live in a situation where $74 USD is a meaningful barrier to accessing a market. Like what situation? To build an app at all he requires at least one computer, which is guaranteed to cost more than $99. He didn't blink at paying $25 to access MacInCloud. The $99 fee is hardly a big deal. It's quite clearly there to encourage people to report charges on stolen credit cards, i.e. to make credit cards usable as a form of ID verification. You're excluding people and organizations who want to maintain a single codebase. There are ways to do that which don't require the web.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > Like what situation? To build an app at all he requires at least one computer, which is guaranteed to cost more than $99. He didn't blink at paying $25 to access MacInCloud. You're from eastern europe, south america or SEA, and $99 is a serious chunk of money. The latest Xcode requires sierra which runs on a late 2009 macbook (or even older using sierra patcher), and you can use that for other things than just publishing your application.
    - george_perez 8y ago
      Latest Xcode needs High Sierra, not Sierra.
jacquesm 8y ago
I don't care about the $99, I absolutely loathe native apps (because I don't have nor want a smartphone) and there is no way I'll ever buy a Mac to do iOS development. I do have some Apple hardware here but it runs Linux. Developers should be free to make their choices without being forced into some kind of eco-system, especially not with Apple itself focusing more on their gadgets and fashion items revenue streams than on making actual computers.
- 333c 8y ago
  Does your distaste for native apps extend to the desktop computer? Many HN users (myself included) dislike Electron-type apps because they feel slow and bloated. On my computer, native apps are much nicer, and feel like they fit in much better with the desktop environment. If you agree that native apps on the desktop are a good thing, than I think you would agree that, for smartphone users, native mobile apps are a good thing as well, for the same reason.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > Many HN users (myself included) dislike Electron-type apps because they feel slow and bloated. How much of this is the fault of the Electron runtime and how much is fault of the developers? When one looks at the sheer amount of code that popular frameworks (or, as I call them, crapworks) like Angular require the browser to load, compile and run, plus the resources that these apps end up gulping down... it's madness, compared to how far plain old jQuery will get you while running at a quarter of consumed resources. Sure, using only jQuery requires lots of thinking about your code structure and it will undoubtedly be more complex. But also: orders of magnitude faster.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      How much of this is the fault of the Electron runtime and how much is fault of the developers? It's completely the fault of the developer for choosing Electron when there are better tools available.
squeral 8y ago
For me the great advantage of web apps is that you build a single code base for that can run on any platform (browser). That make it so much easier to maintain so you can focus more on features. If you build a native app for iOS you'll have to build another for Android and so it could be harder to maintain.
- curun1r 8y ago
  I think you've discovered his point. The advantage that you describe makes the developer's job easier, not the user's. If you're an iOS user, where the monetary incentive is there for developers to invest the time to build you a native app, you don't care whether that imposes a greater hardship on the developer, because you're not the one affected. You've become accustomed to developers building something specifically for you and you're not willing to throw that away for what is a somewhat compromised experience that makes the developer's life easier.
  - notriddle 8y ago
    As a user, I appreciate web apps because: 1. Web apps typically work everywhere, including on my Android phone, on my Windows machine, on my mom's Mac, and on Linux when I used to use it as my primary desktop platform. I know this without having to look up a compatibility table because I opened it in my browser, and other than mobile-version/desktop-version, web apps work the same way everywhere. Native apps are often platform exclusives, and even if they do work on multiple platforms, they work differently on different ones. Try asking someone who owns a Mac how to use MS Office when you're on Windows. 2. I know how to share web apps with my mom by texting her a link. Even if your native app has a share button, it's in a different place in different apps instead of just "click the address bar and hit Ctrl-C". 3. Web apps almost always work with my browser's password manager, ad blocker, and stuff. Native apps are more of a crapshoot there. 4. Web apps are limited by the browser's sandbox (this is not applicable to native apps on Android or iOS, since they're sandboxed pretty much the same way as web apps, but Windows and Mac are both still playing catch-up). 5. If Linux users didn't have web apps, they'd have no apps at all.
    - 8y ago
christocracy 8y ago
>requiring a Mac No kidding. If you hope to develop apps for iOS, you better have a machine with the corresponding build tools. I make a number of Cordova plugins. Many devs without a Mac often use PhoneGap Build as their dev build service. The turn-around to make a code-change and see the result must be about 60s.
- earenndil 8y ago
  But apple could provide an ios sdk for linux or windows.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Not going to happen
    - trumped 8y ago
      maybe they'll change their mind when their market share goes back to what it was 20 years ago (that's me being hopeful, it probably will never happen)
k__ 8y ago
All of this is wrong. btw.
Silhouette 8y ago
Barrier to entry. If your project is more than a hobby, you can jump through a couple hoops to reach the iOS userbase. Sure, I can do that. But I won't. If you buy an iPhone, I'm afraid you will just get an inferior version of my service, or you won't find it at all, because you bought into a platform that is developer-hostile. In the meantime, all of my other customers, who are happy to visit my web sites directly or find them via more developer-friendly channels, will be benefitting from improved features or extra content or lower prices that we could offer because we didn't waste time jumping through Apple's hoops. This is very much about barriers to entry, because every barrier cleared represents an opportunity cost. Nothing about jumping through Apple's hoops makes my service better for my customers, and all of it makes life harder for us. Your whole argument about being developer-first also being user-hostile seems like one big false dichotomy to me. It is precisely because I have limited time and resources and I want to spend them making things better for my users and thus ultimately being more successful as a business that I won't play these games.
- briandear 8y ago
  You AREN’T making things better for your users — you aren’t making things better for you.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Your comment doesn't make sense, but even if it did, you don't have enough information about what we do to make any intelligent judgement and you're just being unnecessarily aggressive and hostile. Please stop doing that.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > Your comment doesn't make sense Really? Does the argument that you're saving on development time by not writing a native app for your users, which gives them a subpar experience, not "make sense"? > you don't have enough information about what we do to make any intelligent judgement You're coming off as "you don't know me, don't judge". If this is how you feel, maybe you could share more information about what you do rather than trying to shut down the discussion?
logfromblammo 8y ago
> I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. This is essentially begging the question, isn't it? If the developer wasn't required to use a specific development environment, might they be able to produce a higher-quality app?
kop316 8y ago
From a user perspective, I want PWA. I would rather PWAs (or something similar) to get first rate apps/aupport, so then it would be trivial to move off the iOS/Android OS. I want to have a smartphone I control. For iOS, I just don't control the phone. So far Apple has been reasonably good with privacy, and Android is almost by design user hostile for user privacy. If a third OS comes out (think Librem 5, PostmarketOS) with PWA support and there are already apps out there, it makes the switch much easier.
WA 8y ago
> Forcing you to use native controls. This is wrong. Cordova has been around for years. Furthermore, it’s detached from reality. I released an app made with Ionic. It’s an app for average joe, not for devs or designers. Out of 20,000 downloads, I received exactly 0 complaints about performance or UI. Most users don’t care and don’t notice anyways. And it’s pretty much the only way how I can maintain an app for both platforms as a solo dev.
- zghst 8y ago
  How accessible is your app? Have you tried it with VoiceOver? How does it do with battery and memory vs another comparable native app? When there's an OS upgrade, does your app automatically adjust to new resolutions and device classes?
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    It doesn't matter. Literally doesn't matter. Making apps work correctly is a lot of effort for zero gain.
    - menckenjr 8y ago
      I'm sure you didn't mean that to read that way.
    - specializeded 8y ago
      I’ve been getting tired of seeing accessibility, accessibility, accessibility in every front end web/iOS/etc conference. Like we get it, everyone’s got it... No longer tired of it, thanks.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    > When there's an OS upgrade, does your app automatically adjust to new resolutions and device classes? HTML and CSS are far more proven at adjusting to arbitrary resolutions and device classes than the vast majority of "native" UI frameworks, specifically because nearly every device class needs to support HTML+CSS, but "native" frameworks don't have to support every device class. Yes, it is neat that specifically, iOS is playing from some interesting fun toys like Cassowary solvers to support some pretty advanced stuff. From a pragmatic standpoint as a cross-platform dev I'd rather just let HTML+CSS do the work, because that can be used everywhere. (Similarly, Browsers in general are pretty strongly accessible and HTML can be written very accessibly. Again, pragmatically cross-platform it's the easiest accessibility solution available.) (Memory and Battery are somewhat fair questions. Given how much time people will spend in a Browser, though, I think the turnabout is better fair play: if there is such a noticeable battery/memory difference between native apps on your platform and websites/webapps, but you spend the majority of your time in websites/webapps, then what is your platform doing wrong?)
jsgo 8y ago
As someone who is both, there are times where you'd like to create a quick web application to do a task that is either very specific to one's needs or only needed for a brief period of time rather than going wholesale application development. In this particular user's case, they just need some API features accessible to web and they'd be golden. As a user, if I have the ability to approve and later revoke the permissions (in the event WebAppX is a bit malicious in its permissions usage), I'm game. That's value added.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > they just need some API features accessible to web and they'd be golden But now you have every single website asking for permission to use the microphone and camera and accelerometer or battery sensor. Every time some sort of device hardware is exposed to web applications, it needs to be rolled back in some way or the other because someone's found a way to use for fingerprinting.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    > Every time some sort of device hardware is exposed to web applications, it needs to be rolled back in some way or the other because someone's found a way to use for fingerprinting. This is odd to me. Do you think it's harder for a native app to fingerprint you? At least on the web I can block specific domains or scripting in general. A native app will always be a net loss for privacy and sandboxing.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      No, of course it's a lot easier for a native app can fingerprint you. The difference is that with native apps, I can trust that someone has already looked at this app to ensure that it's not doing anything malicious. Plus, I, myself, have to install the app, which shows that I put my trust in it.
      - danShumway 8y ago
        I used to have this perspective, but recently I've started to find it problematic. Curation, while effective, is always a monkey patch on top of security. Ideally, I want to sandbox code. I don't want to have to trust it. I think it's unnecessarily limiting to assume that users should only ever run code that they trust. In fact even native apps already try to do some sandboxing through a permission model. It's just that their permission model is less effective than the web, gives users less control, and leaks more information. I'm also not sure that this matches my real world experience. I might use Facebook messenger or Twitter on my phone's browser. Installing something like Matrix makes me feel even better about that. I would never install their native app. In theory I trust apps more than websites, but in practice I find that I usually view the app store with just as much suspicion as I do a random website.
magicalist 8y ago
> There is a reason the Microsoft Store and Google Play are absolutely filled with trash, and this is part of it. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend that the App Store isn't also filled with trash. There are some excellent things (especially in security and privacy) you can depend on Apple's review either catching or warding off, but poor app quality is definitely not on that list. (and as others have noted, far more apps are built with web views than you apparently realize)
vkjv 8y ago
I love electron and I've never built one and don't have any immediate plans to do so. I'm a Linux user and because of how easy electron has made cross platform, I am enjoying far more applications that support Linux because barrier is so incredibly low. Are they resource hungry? Yes. Are they as smooth as a well polished native app? No. But, for many of these apps, the alternative is having nothing at all. "Requiring a Mac." This most often bites me for testing Apple Pay. This assumes that writing an iOS is my primary responsibility. For some folks, that's not the case. This isn't a huge deal because I can just use a test device, but it is annoying.
- andai 8y ago
  This is a really interesting point I haven't heard before: that the silver lining of everyone making electron apps is better Linux support!
  - alxlaz 8y ago
    The silver is somewhat dulled by the fact that an Electron application is barely better than no application at all, only slightly less heavy than running VirtualBox in seamless mode, and has about the same level of native integration.
    - RaleyField 8y ago
      > slightly Dude what are you on about? VirtualBox is 1GB minimum, better 2 and has to virtualize gfx card, meanwhile electron is talking to gfx drivers directly and takes 100-200 MB if used correctly.
Jyaif 8y ago
-Having a barrier to entry is good useful only if your App-store search is crap. Also, the $99 is every year. Developing on iOS has cost me $900 in certificates, compared to $25 with Google. -That's obviously wrong, see 100% of the top selling games. -The top developers have to make clusters of freaking mac minis just to run their continuous integration tests. Do you think they are happy about that?
- thebruce87m 8y ago
  I wouldn’t consider myself a “Top Developer” but in that situation even I would run a single Mac with multiple OSX virtual machines.
- judge2020 8y ago
  > -The top developers have to make clusters of freaking mac minis just to run their continuous integration tests. Do you think they are happy about that? Top app developers should already be on hosted/SaaS CI services that offer Mac servers like Travis or CircleCI.
chrisweekly 8y ago
You might be applying your anti-Electron arguments a bit too broadly. PWA is not that easy, but the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal. Electron is (arguably) a shortcut for desktop apps, putting webdev convenience above UX. Whereas PWA is all about improving UX, and is also typically (in practice) more relevant to mobile than desktop.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal Where were you ten years ago? Remember installing software on Windows? > Whereas PWA is all about improving UX But it doesn't improve UX.
- khedoros1 8y ago
  > PWA is not that easy, but the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal. Searching on the app store and hitting "install" is an abysmal amount of friction?
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
    Yes. Compared to links, anyway.
    - khedoros1 8y ago
      Well....OK, yes, not installing something is less work than installing something. I think that saying "abysmal" is being overly dramatic, though.
- faizmokhtar 8y ago
  > the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal Wouldn't PWA be the same too? In fact, I think having to figure out the web address and type it in, and then add it to the home screen is much more tedious.
vt100 8y ago
Exactly. If you are a Consumer, or want to sell to Consumers, then Apple is where it's at.
smsm42 8y ago
> This is similar to the "barrier to entry" one above, but seriously. I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. That quote could be in Wikipedia article about survivor bias as an illustration. Of course you haven't heard it - anybody for whom it is a problem is not developing iOS apps and probably doesn't talk to you about it. I am in software industry for decades now, and I have developed software for dozens of systems, but I wouldn't waste my time at trying my hand at iOS development anytime soon - one reason being because there are too many hoops to jump over. And I already own a Mac. Imagine same position where you may need to buy one.
littlestymaar 8y ago
> Everyone else wants native apps back, even if they don't know it. Case and point: the hatred for all the apps moving to Electron and the ridiculous amount of resources they consume. The main complain people have with electron, is its heaviness. You ship a whole browser just for your tiny app. If every electron instance was using the same library & the same process (esp. the same JavaScript VM), most of the trouble would go away. > Most people don't know what Electron is, but they can tell you how much they hate the new Skype. Most people hate UI changes, and the new skype brings a lot of it! On a technical point of view, the new Skype is quite ok, it's not like the old ones were especially good either …
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > The main complain people have with electron, is its heaviness. You ship a whole browser just for your tiny app. If every electron instance was using the same library & the same process (esp. the same JavaScript VM), most of the trouble would go away. Among other things, such as lack of accessibility, a UI that looks out-of-place on the platform, and general lack of refinement. > Most people hate UI changes, and the new skype brings a lot of it! On a technical point of view, the new Skype is quite ok, it's not like the old ones were especially good either … I'm still running Skype 7.59 because it's not a RAM hog and looks a lot nicer than Skype 8. The new Skype is significantly worse.
- Can_Not 8y ago
  Most people have been hating the new Skype long before they converted it to Electron.
oalessandr 8y ago
Also from a user's perspective, I'd prefer everything that doesn't need to be a native app to be a pwa. They are much more lightweight and more limited in permissions. Probably those apps don't need to be submitted to the store either, except for discoverability (users are now used to search for apps on the store)
mankash666 8y ago
Gosh darn the cognitive dissonance!! The free market and users are completely capable of choosing quality apps, iOS/Apple needn't babysit, nay play brainwashing big-brother-evil-megacorp strangling competition/dissent, them in the process. "If your project is more than a hobby, you ...." Yes yes - if you're serious about your project, you'll willfully submit yourself to anal-probes by monopolistic mega-corporation that has inserted itself as the gatekeeper to running software on one's own legally owned hardware - which, in the history of computing, is a first. When was the last time you let your refrigerator manufacturer tell you what items are allowed in your OWN FUCKING refrigerator? Why is different for iOS/Apple?
- mft_ 8y ago
  > When was the last time you let your refrigerator manufacturer tell you what items are allowed in your OWN FUCKING refrigerator? Why is different for iOS/Apple? Well, if the things I put in my refrigerator started acting like malware, I think manufacturers might start taking a different approach...
  - mankash666 8y ago
    But 99.9999% of app store rejections aren't malware related. It's a scapegoat reason of convenience, but not the real reason, v.i.z. Apple's insatiable monopolistic ambition of totalitarianism, of cock-blocking freedom on their devices.
    - rbrtl 8y ago
      Source please? If your vitriolic rant has any substance, please present it. Otherwise you just come off as a cock-sure, know nothing asshole.
      - mankash666 8y ago
        Ironic that you accuse someone of being a cock-sure know nothing asshole without a shred of evidence that app store rejections are somehow malware-deterrence driven. Unless your vitriolic rant arises from some jingoistic fervor for Apple, and it bat-blinds you to Apple's totalitarian rules of engagement, the evidence is really, really apparent!! Or maybe you really enjoy the Stockholm syndrome of Apple telling you want apps you can and cannot run on your iPhone. And you really crave for your Mac to get locked down in a similar fashion, in some sadomasochistic homage to your tormentor. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Cheers
dragandj 8y ago
Yet most of the apps in the AppStore are absolute crap. Add to that the useless search. OTOH, many students or open source developers may want to try offering free or cheap apps of ok quality, but they are disincentivized by the cost.
callumlocke 8y ago
> There is a reason the Microsoft Store and Google Play are absolutely filled with trash So is the iOS App Store. If you dig past the first few search results you find tons of trash. But I'm not sure it matters how many low quality apps there are overall, as long as the store does its job of showing me the good ones first.
z3t4 8y ago
The reason you don't like app's developed in a certain technology is because you are a developer. Normal users can't tell the difference, or don't care.

davidgl 8y ago

totally agree, Apple want quality not quantity, and to protect their users (so they are happy to pay a premium)

judah 8y ago

Controls: It doesn't force me to use native controls. :-) My web app today is still using the free and opened web, and all the goodness that comes with that, for UI and code. Requiring a Mac: Now you've met one. I built a halfway decent iOS app, and I don't want to spend $7000 on a Mac and its crappy dev tools and frameworks. I've poured nearly 7 years of work into user experience. I don't need to redo all that for Apple's closed, proprietary platform.

rolha-capoeira 8y ago
$7000? Your bias is showing. You can buy a Mac for <$1000 and it's perfectly capable of developing most apps.
- judah 8y ago
  Yes, I'm using hyperbole. :-) Even $1000 to build a free app is too much. (That said, going to Apple.com and clicking Mac shows me the base model for $4999.00 [0]) What happened to cross-platform apps? Why is it that Google and Microsoft are champions of the free and opened web, and even cross-platform dev tools for web development, while Apple is holding back progress? I think the reason is their business is jeopardized by the free and open web, just as Microsoft was in the late 1990s. [0}: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro
  - waterside81 8y ago
    You linked to an iMac Pro, a high-end desktop, not a MacBook. Entry level MacBook is 1299
  - rolha-capoeira 8y ago
    First you said "$7000 on a Mac", then I said "You can buy a Mac for <$1000", then you said "Macbook shows me the base model for $4999.00" and you linked to an iMac Pro.
  - eropple 8y ago
    "Clicking Macbook shows me an iMac Pro" Yeah, no, it actually literally doesn't. There's no "Macbook" button on Apple's site. There's a Mac button. The Mac page then shows you a range of Macs, from the Macbook to the Mac mini, at the top of the screen. they are showing you the iMac Pro--their halo-effect product and newest release--on the Mac landing page; that's not the same thing and it is dishonest to assert that it is. Open standards are good. (The open web, whatever. I use React Native, because I like writing applications that feel responsive.) Open standard thumping as a proxy for weird platform fandoms is really not. Stop.

tomger 8y ago

Most of your arguments are subjective and anecdotal. It’s also “case in point.”

Grae 8y ago

>If the difference between $99 and $25 is make-or-break, you're probably trying to publish a hobby/low quality app anyways. Or maybe you live in a situation where $74 USD is a meaningful barrier to accessing a market. >The only people who like webapps and their encroachment on good, native apps are webapp developers because it allows them to use their skillset to build something they don't know how to build. You're excluding people and organizations who want to maintain a single codebase. >I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. My takeaway from this is that you've not met a lot of developers outside the U.S. or who have ethical concerns about mandatory hardware / software purchases as prerequisite to market access.

peoplewindow 8y ago
Or maybe you live in a situation where $74 USD is a meaningful barrier to accessing a market. Like what situation? To build an app at all he requires at least one computer, which is guaranteed to cost more than $99. He didn't blink at paying $25 to access MacInCloud. The $99 fee is hardly a big deal. It's quite clearly there to encourage people to report charges on stolen credit cards, i.e. to make credit cards usable as a form of ID verification. You're excluding people and organizations who want to maintain a single codebase. There are ways to do that which don't require the web.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > Like what situation? To build an app at all he requires at least one computer, which is guaranteed to cost more than $99. He didn't blink at paying $25 to access MacInCloud. You're from eastern europe, south america or SEA, and $99 is a serious chunk of money. The latest Xcode requires sierra which runs on a late 2009 macbook (or even older using sierra patcher), and you can use that for other things than just publishing your application.
  - george_perez 8y ago
    Latest Xcode needs High Sierra, not Sierra.

jacquesm 8y ago

I don't care about the $99, I absolutely loathe native apps (because I don't have nor want a smartphone) and there is no way I'll ever buy a Mac to do iOS development. I do have some Apple hardware here but it runs Linux. Developers should be free to make their choices without being forced into some kind of eco-system, especially not with Apple itself focusing more on their gadgets and fashion items revenue streams than on making actual computers.

333c 8y ago
Does your distaste for native apps extend to the desktop computer? Many HN users (myself included) dislike Electron-type apps because they feel slow and bloated. On my computer, native apps are much nicer, and feel like they fit in much better with the desktop environment. If you agree that native apps on the desktop are a good thing, than I think you would agree that, for smartphone users, native mobile apps are a good thing as well, for the same reason.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > Many HN users (myself included) dislike Electron-type apps because they feel slow and bloated. How much of this is the fault of the Electron runtime and how much is fault of the developers? When one looks at the sheer amount of code that popular frameworks (or, as I call them, crapworks) like Angular require the browser to load, compile and run, plus the resources that these apps end up gulping down... it's madness, compared to how far plain old jQuery will get you while running at a quarter of consumed resources. Sure, using only jQuery requires lots of thinking about your code structure and it will undoubtedly be more complex. But also: orders of magnitude faster.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    How much of this is the fault of the Electron runtime and how much is fault of the developers? It's completely the fault of the developer for choosing Electron when there are better tools available.

squeral 8y ago

For me the great advantage of web apps is that you build a single code base for that can run on any platform (browser). That make it so much easier to maintain so you can focus more on features. If you build a native app for iOS you'll have to build another for Android and so it could be harder to maintain.

curun1r 8y ago
I think you've discovered his point. The advantage that you describe makes the developer's job easier, not the user's. If you're an iOS user, where the monetary incentive is there for developers to invest the time to build you a native app, you don't care whether that imposes a greater hardship on the developer, because you're not the one affected. You've become accustomed to developers building something specifically for you and you're not willing to throw that away for what is a somewhat compromised experience that makes the developer's life easier.
- notriddle 8y ago
  As a user, I appreciate web apps because: 1. Web apps typically work everywhere, including on my Android phone, on my Windows machine, on my mom's Mac, and on Linux when I used to use it as my primary desktop platform. I know this without having to look up a compatibility table because I opened it in my browser, and other than mobile-version/desktop-version, web apps work the same way everywhere. Native apps are often platform exclusives, and even if they do work on multiple platforms, they work differently on different ones. Try asking someone who owns a Mac how to use MS Office when you're on Windows. 2. I know how to share web apps with my mom by texting her a link. Even if your native app has a share button, it's in a different place in different apps instead of just "click the address bar and hit Ctrl-C". 3. Web apps almost always work with my browser's password manager, ad blocker, and stuff. Native apps are more of a crapshoot there. 4. Web apps are limited by the browser's sandbox (this is not applicable to native apps on Android or iOS, since they're sandboxed pretty much the same way as web apps, but Windows and Mac are both still playing catch-up). 5. If Linux users didn't have web apps, they'd have no apps at all.
  - 8y ago

christocracy 8y ago

>requiring a Mac No kidding. If you hope to develop apps for iOS, you better have a machine with the corresponding build tools. I make a number of Cordova plugins. Many devs without a Mac often use PhoneGap Build as their dev build service. The turn-around to make a code-change and see the result must be about 60s.

earenndil 8y ago
But apple could provide an ios sdk for linux or windows.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Not going to happen
  - trumped 8y ago
    maybe they'll change their mind when their market share goes back to what it was 20 years ago (that's me being hopeful, it probably will never happen)

k__ 8y ago

All of this is wrong. btw.

Silhouette 8y ago

Barrier to entry. If your project is more than a hobby, you can jump through a couple hoops to reach the iOS userbase. Sure, I can do that. But I won't. If you buy an iPhone, I'm afraid you will just get an inferior version of my service, or you won't find it at all, because you bought into a platform that is developer-hostile. In the meantime, all of my other customers, who are happy to visit my web sites directly or find them via more developer-friendly channels, will be benefitting from improved features or extra content or lower prices that we could offer because we didn't waste time jumping through Apple's hoops. This is very much about barriers to entry, because every barrier cleared represents an opportunity cost. Nothing about jumping through Apple's hoops makes my service better for my customers, and all of it makes life harder for us. Your whole argument about being developer-first also being user-hostile seems like one big false dichotomy to me. It is precisely because I have limited time and resources and I want to spend them making things better for my users and thus ultimately being more successful as a business that I won't play these games.

briandear 8y ago
You AREN’T making things better for your users — you aren’t making things better for you.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  Your comment doesn't make sense, but even if it did, you don't have enough information about what we do to make any intelligent judgement and you're just being unnecessarily aggressive and hostile. Please stop doing that.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > Your comment doesn't make sense Really? Does the argument that you're saving on development time by not writing a native app for your users, which gives them a subpar experience, not "make sense"? > you don't have enough information about what we do to make any intelligent judgement You're coming off as "you don't know me, don't judge". If this is how you feel, maybe you could share more information about what you do rather than trying to shut down the discussion?

logfromblammo 8y ago

> I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. This is essentially begging the question, isn't it? If the developer wasn't required to use a specific development environment, might they be able to produce a higher-quality app?

kop316 8y ago

From a user perspective, I want PWA. I would rather PWAs (or something similar) to get first rate apps/aupport, so then it would be trivial to move off the iOS/Android OS. I want to have a smartphone I control. For iOS, I just don't control the phone. So far Apple has been reasonably good with privacy, and Android is almost by design user hostile for user privacy. If a third OS comes out (think Librem 5, PostmarketOS) with PWA support and there are already apps out there, it makes the switch much easier.

WA 8y ago

> Forcing you to use native controls. This is wrong. Cordova has been around for years. Furthermore, it’s detached from reality. I released an app made with Ionic. It’s an app for average joe, not for devs or designers. Out of 20,000 downloads, I received exactly 0 complaints about performance or UI. Most users don’t care and don’t notice anyways. And it’s pretty much the only way how I can maintain an app for both platforms as a solo dev.

zghst 8y ago
How accessible is your app? Have you tried it with VoiceOver? How does it do with battery and memory vs another comparable native app? When there's an OS upgrade, does your app automatically adjust to new resolutions and device classes?
- freeone3000 8y ago
  It doesn't matter. Literally doesn't matter. Making apps work correctly is a lot of effort for zero gain.
  - menckenjr 8y ago
    I'm sure you didn't mean that to read that way.
  - specializeded 8y ago
    I’ve been getting tired of seeing accessibility, accessibility, accessibility in every front end web/iOS/etc conference. Like we get it, everyone’s got it... No longer tired of it, thanks.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  > When there's an OS upgrade, does your app automatically adjust to new resolutions and device classes? HTML and CSS are far more proven at adjusting to arbitrary resolutions and device classes than the vast majority of "native" UI frameworks, specifically because nearly every device class needs to support HTML+CSS, but "native" frameworks don't have to support every device class. Yes, it is neat that specifically, iOS is playing from some interesting fun toys like Cassowary solvers to support some pretty advanced stuff. From a pragmatic standpoint as a cross-platform dev I'd rather just let HTML+CSS do the work, because that can be used everywhere. (Similarly, Browsers in general are pretty strongly accessible and HTML can be written very accessibly. Again, pragmatically cross-platform it's the easiest accessibility solution available.) (Memory and Battery are somewhat fair questions. Given how much time people will spend in a Browser, though, I think the turnabout is better fair play: if there is such a noticeable battery/memory difference between native apps on your platform and websites/webapps, but you spend the majority of your time in websites/webapps, then what is your platform doing wrong?)

jsgo 8y ago

As someone who is both, there are times where you'd like to create a quick web application to do a task that is either very specific to one's needs or only needed for a brief period of time rather than going wholesale application development. In this particular user's case, they just need some API features accessible to web and they'd be golden. As a user, if I have the ability to approve and later revoke the permissions (in the event WebAppX is a bit malicious in its permissions usage), I'm game. That's value added.

saagarjha 8y ago
> they just need some API features accessible to web and they'd be golden But now you have every single website asking for permission to use the microphone and camera and accelerometer or battery sensor. Every time some sort of device hardware is exposed to web applications, it needs to be rolled back in some way or the other because someone's found a way to use for fingerprinting.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > Every time some sort of device hardware is exposed to web applications, it needs to be rolled back in some way or the other because someone's found a way to use for fingerprinting. This is odd to me. Do you think it's harder for a native app to fingerprint you? At least on the web I can block specific domains or scripting in general. A native app will always be a net loss for privacy and sandboxing.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    No, of course it's a lot easier for a native app can fingerprint you. The difference is that with native apps, I can trust that someone has already looked at this app to ensure that it's not doing anything malicious. Plus, I, myself, have to install the app, which shows that I put my trust in it.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      I used to have this perspective, but recently I've started to find it problematic. Curation, while effective, is always a monkey patch on top of security. Ideally, I want to sandbox code. I don't want to have to trust it. I think it's unnecessarily limiting to assume that users should only ever run code that they trust. In fact even native apps already try to do some sandboxing through a permission model. It's just that their permission model is less effective than the web, gives users less control, and leaks more information. I'm also not sure that this matches my real world experience. I might use Facebook messenger or Twitter on my phone's browser. Installing something like Matrix makes me feel even better about that. I would never install their native app. In theory I trust apps more than websites, but in practice I find that I usually view the app store with just as much suspicion as I do a random website.

magicalist 8y ago

> There is a reason the Microsoft Store and Google Play are absolutely filled with trash, and this is part of it. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend that the App Store isn't also filled with trash. There are some excellent things (especially in security and privacy) you can depend on Apple's review either catching or warding off, but poor app quality is definitely not on that list. (and as others have noted, far more apps are built with web views than you apparently realize)

vkjv 8y ago

I love electron and I've never built one and don't have any immediate plans to do so. I'm a Linux user and because of how easy electron has made cross platform, I am enjoying far more applications that support Linux because barrier is so incredibly low. Are they resource hungry? Yes. Are they as smooth as a well polished native app? No. But, for many of these apps, the alternative is having nothing at all. "Requiring a Mac." This most often bites me for testing Apple Pay. This assumes that writing an iOS is my primary responsibility. For some folks, that's not the case. This isn't a huge deal because I can just use a test device, but it is annoying.

andai 8y ago
This is a really interesting point I haven't heard before: that the silver lining of everyone making electron apps is better Linux support!
- alxlaz 8y ago
  The silver is somewhat dulled by the fact that an Electron application is barely better than no application at all, only slightly less heavy than running VirtualBox in seamless mode, and has about the same level of native integration.
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    > slightly Dude what are you on about? VirtualBox is 1GB minimum, better 2 and has to virtualize gfx card, meanwhile electron is talking to gfx drivers directly and takes 100-200 MB if used correctly.

Jyaif 8y ago

-Having a barrier to entry is good useful only if your App-store search is crap. Also, the $99 is every year. Developing on iOS has cost me $900 in certificates, compared to $25 with Google. -That's obviously wrong, see 100% of the top selling games. -The top developers have to make clusters of freaking mac minis just to run their continuous integration tests. Do you think they are happy about that?

thebruce87m 8y ago
I wouldn’t consider myself a “Top Developer” but in that situation even I would run a single Mac with multiple OSX virtual machines.
judge2020 8y ago
> -The top developers have to make clusters of freaking mac minis just to run their continuous integration tests. Do you think they are happy about that? Top app developers should already be on hosted/SaaS CI services that offer Mac servers like Travis or CircleCI.

chrisweekly 8y ago

You might be applying your anti-Electron arguments a bit too broadly. PWA is not that easy, but the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal. Electron is (arguably) a shortcut for desktop apps, putting webdev convenience above UX. Whereas PWA is all about improving UX, and is also typically (in practice) more relevant to mobile than desktop.

saagarjha 8y ago
> the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal Where were you ten years ago? Remember installing software on Windows? > Whereas PWA is all about improving UX But it doesn't improve UX.
khedoros1 8y ago
> PWA is not that easy, but the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal. Searching on the app store and hitting "install" is an abysmal amount of friction?
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  Yes. Compared to links, anyway.
  - khedoros1 8y ago
    Well....OK, yes, not installing something is less work than installing something. I think that saying "abysmal" is being overly dramatic, though.
faizmokhtar 8y ago
> the UX friction involved with downloading and installing native mobile apps is abysmal Wouldn't PWA be the same too? In fact, I think having to figure out the web address and type it in, and then add it to the home screen is much more tedious.

vt100 8y ago

Exactly. If you are a Consumer, or want to sell to Consumers, then Apple is where it's at.

smsm42 8y ago

> This is similar to the "barrier to entry" one above, but seriously. I've never met a developer who complained about needing a Mac to develop for iOS that has put forth an even halfway decent iOS app. That quote could be in Wikipedia article about survivor bias as an illustration. Of course you haven't heard it - anybody for whom it is a problem is not developing iOS apps and probably doesn't talk to you about it. I am in software industry for decades now, and I have developed software for dozens of systems, but I wouldn't waste my time at trying my hand at iOS development anytime soon - one reason being because there are too many hoops to jump over. And I already own a Mac. Imagine same position where you may need to buy one.

littlestymaar 8y ago

> Everyone else wants native apps back, even if they don't know it. Case and point: the hatred for all the apps moving to Electron and the ridiculous amount of resources they consume. The main complain people have with electron, is its heaviness. You ship a whole browser just for your tiny app. If every electron instance was using the same library & the same process (esp. the same JavaScript VM), most of the trouble would go away. > Most people don't know what Electron is, but they can tell you how much they hate the new Skype. Most people hate UI changes, and the new skype brings a lot of it! On a technical point of view, the new Skype is quite ok, it's not like the old ones were especially good either …

saagarjha 8y ago
> The main complain people have with electron, is its heaviness. You ship a whole browser just for your tiny app. If every electron instance was using the same library & the same process (esp. the same JavaScript VM), most of the trouble would go away. Among other things, such as lack of accessibility, a UI that looks out-of-place on the platform, and general lack of refinement. > Most people hate UI changes, and the new skype brings a lot of it! On a technical point of view, the new Skype is quite ok, it's not like the old ones were especially good either … I'm still running Skype 7.59 because it's not a RAM hog and looks a lot nicer than Skype 8. The new Skype is significantly worse.
Can_Not 8y ago
Most people have been hating the new Skype long before they converted it to Electron.

oalessandr 8y ago

Also from a user's perspective, I'd prefer everything that doesn't need to be a native app to be a pwa. They are much more lightweight and more limited in permissions. Probably those apps don't need to be submitted to the store either, except for discoverability (users are now used to search for apps on the store)

mankash666 8y ago

Gosh darn the cognitive dissonance!! The free market and users are completely capable of choosing quality apps, iOS/Apple needn't babysit, nay play brainwashing big-brother-evil-megacorp strangling competition/dissent, them in the process. "If your project is more than a hobby, you ...." Yes yes - if you're serious about your project, you'll willfully submit yourself to anal-probes by monopolistic mega-corporation that has inserted itself as the gatekeeper to running software on one's own legally owned hardware - which, in the history of computing, is a first. When was the last time you let your refrigerator manufacturer tell you what items are allowed in your OWN FUCKING refrigerator? Why is different for iOS/Apple?

mft_ 8y ago
> When was the last time you let your refrigerator manufacturer tell you what items are allowed in your OWN FUCKING refrigerator? Why is different for iOS/Apple? Well, if the things I put in my refrigerator started acting like malware, I think manufacturers might start taking a different approach...
- mankash666 8y ago
  But 99.9999% of app store rejections aren't malware related. It's a scapegoat reason of convenience, but not the real reason, v.i.z. Apple's insatiable monopolistic ambition of totalitarianism, of cock-blocking freedom on their devices.
  - rbrtl 8y ago
    Source please? If your vitriolic rant has any substance, please present it. Otherwise you just come off as a cock-sure, know nothing asshole.
    - mankash666 8y ago
      Ironic that you accuse someone of being a cock-sure know nothing asshole without a shred of evidence that app store rejections are somehow malware-deterrence driven. Unless your vitriolic rant arises from some jingoistic fervor for Apple, and it bat-blinds you to Apple's totalitarian rules of engagement, the evidence is really, really apparent!! Or maybe you really enjoy the Stockholm syndrome of Apple telling you want apps you can and cannot run on your iPhone. And you really crave for your Mac to get locked down in a similar fashion, in some sadomasochistic homage to your tormentor. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Cheers

dragandj 8y ago

Yet most of the apps in the AppStore are absolute crap. Add to that the useless search. OTOH, many students or open source developers may want to try offering free or cheap apps of ok quality, but they are disincentivized by the cost.

callumlocke 8y ago

> There is a reason the Microsoft Store and Google Play are absolutely filled with trash So is the iOS App Store. If you dig past the first few search results you find tons of trash. But I'm not sure it matters how many low quality apps there are overall, as long as the store does its job of showing me the good ones first.

z3t4 8y ago

The reason you don't like app's developed in a certain technology is because you are a developer. Normal users can't tell the difference, or don't care.