4 ms·

Web apps are the future, how many more stupid native apps must I install to get basic textual and photo information? The only right answer is universal apps(the

Web apps are the future, how many more stupid native apps must I install to get basic textual and photo information? The only right answer is universal apps(the web).

untog 8y ago
Any absolute answer is wrong here. Native apps will likely always have a place when OS/UI integration are paramount. But web apps will become a lot more prevalent than they have been previous as more and more hooks are exposed to the native core. Which is a good thing for everyone.
- XorNot 8y ago
  I'd argue the issue is that a lot of "native" apps are basically a webapp in a native wrapper on mobile (and desktop now - thanks Electron!). I don't really know the best way to delineate what should and shouldn't be a web app, beyond a vague notion that my daily news rotation should be in the browser.
- taoistextremist 8y ago
  Yeah, there's certain things that native apps make a lot more sense for (e.g. messaging apps like Facebook Messenger where you want notifications to come up similar to text messages), but certain things really don't need anything more than the mobile website you look at (for example, at least for some people, mobile Wikipedia over the app).
  - untog 8y ago
    > (e.g. messaging apps like Facebook Messenger where you want notifications to come up similar to text messages) Actually I'd argue the web is great for that too. On Android you can already implement a messaging app, complete with notifications, on the web. I wish people like my bank used it. I don't want to install their native app because I barely ever use it, but would I like to get urgent notifications from them every now and then? You bet I would.
    - taoistextremist 8y ago
      I personally don't like relying on my browser for notifications. I like having native apps because usually fine tuning notifications for them is easier in that respect, things that while I imagine are possible through the web browser, probably aren't going to be done on a web app. It's also just an organizational thing since I don't like to have a list of a bunch of tabs, but having a handful of apps isn't too bad to navigate through. Just because there's been a lot of progress in making web apps do things that were more natural for native apps, doesn't mean that it's the best way to go about something. I get the wish for more support for web apps, though. I just switched over from a near 4-year-old phone that was replete with security updates and other un-removable stuff in the storage which prevented me from having a lot of apps installed (especially as so many insist on a large footprint in internal storage), so I increasingly used my web browser to access things. After the switch, though, you can bet I downloaded a bunch of apps I had deleted.
redial 8y ago
How many websites are you gonna have to "install" to get basic textual and photo information, whatever that means?
- overcast 8y ago
  Zero? Websites don't ask to install when I visit them.
xfer 8y ago
What's "basic textual and photo information"? You have already installed one called the browser, to get some information.
- overcast 8y ago
  Do I need to explain what text, and photos are?
- passiveincomelg 8y ago
  Yes, and the browser should be enough in many cases, but the holder of that information tries to force their app on everyone. One of the most annoying examples of that for me is accepting a new connection on LinkedIn from my phone. I want to tap on the link in the email and be done. Instead it redirects me to the store, I close it, try again. Sometimes it works, sometimes I give up and do it later. Another example is Facebook. :)
ksk 8y ago
>how many more stupid native apps must I install to get basic textual and photo information? You're conflating the web with web apps. Those are two separate things. If web apps are to be the future, bloating up the browser to the size of an OS to get native-app level functionality sounds like a dystopian future to me. I don't want my browser to access my GPU, I don't want by browser leaking my LAN IP, I don't want my browser communicating with USB devices on my machine, etc, etc... Also, nobody (yet) has been able to create a GUI/Client App standard for cross-platform delivery that performs well across different hardware architectures and operating systems which are designed and optimized for completely different things. That makes sense because the "one size fits all" way of doing things is terrible for performance among other things. >The only right answer is universal apps(the web). The only "right" answer is that we should tolerate specific web apps only when the benefits outweigh the costs.

Web apps are the future, how many more stupid native apps must I install to get basic textual and photo information? The only right answer is universal apps(the web).

untog 8y ago

Any absolute answer is wrong here. Native apps will likely always have a place when OS/UI integration are paramount. But web apps will become a lot more prevalent than they have been previous as more and more hooks are exposed to the native core. Which is a good thing for everyone.

XorNot 8y ago
I'd argue the issue is that a lot of "native" apps are basically a webapp in a native wrapper on mobile (and desktop now - thanks Electron!). I don't really know the best way to delineate what should and shouldn't be a web app, beyond a vague notion that my daily news rotation should be in the browser.
taoistextremist 8y ago
Yeah, there's certain things that native apps make a lot more sense for (e.g. messaging apps like Facebook Messenger where you want notifications to come up similar to text messages), but certain things really don't need anything more than the mobile website you look at (for example, at least for some people, mobile Wikipedia over the app).
- untog 8y ago
  > (e.g. messaging apps like Facebook Messenger where you want notifications to come up similar to text messages) Actually I'd argue the web is great for that too. On Android you can already implement a messaging app, complete with notifications, on the web. I wish people like my bank used it. I don't want to install their native app because I barely ever use it, but would I like to get urgent notifications from them every now and then? You bet I would.
  - taoistextremist 8y ago
    I personally don't like relying on my browser for notifications. I like having native apps because usually fine tuning notifications for them is easier in that respect, things that while I imagine are possible through the web browser, probably aren't going to be done on a web app. It's also just an organizational thing since I don't like to have a list of a bunch of tabs, but having a handful of apps isn't too bad to navigate through. Just because there's been a lot of progress in making web apps do things that were more natural for native apps, doesn't mean that it's the best way to go about something. I get the wish for more support for web apps, though. I just switched over from a near 4-year-old phone that was replete with security updates and other un-removable stuff in the storage which prevented me from having a lot of apps installed (especially as so many insist on a large footprint in internal storage), so I increasingly used my web browser to access things. After the switch, though, you can bet I downloaded a bunch of apps I had deleted.

redial 8y ago

How many websites are you gonna have to "install" to get basic textual and photo information, whatever that means?

overcast 8y ago
Zero? Websites don't ask to install when I visit them.

xfer 8y ago

What's "basic textual and photo information"? You have already installed one called the browser, to get some information.

overcast 8y ago
Do I need to explain what text, and photos are?
passiveincomelg 8y ago
Yes, and the browser should be enough in many cases, but the holder of that information tries to force their app on everyone. One of the most annoying examples of that for me is accepting a new connection on LinkedIn from my phone. I want to tap on the link in the email and be done. Instead it redirects me to the store, I close it, try again. Sometimes it works, sometimes I give up and do it later. Another example is Facebook. :)

ksk 8y ago

>how many more stupid native apps must I install to get basic textual and photo information? You're conflating the web with web apps. Those are two separate things. If web apps are to be the future, bloating up the browser to the size of an OS to get native-app level functionality sounds like a dystopian future to me. I don't want my browser to access my GPU, I don't want by browser leaking my LAN IP, I don't want my browser communicating with USB devices on my machine, etc, etc... Also, nobody (yet) has been able to create a GUI/Client App standard for cross-platform delivery that performs well across different hardware architectures and operating systems which are designed and optimized for completely different things. That makes sense because the "one size fits all" way of doing things is terrible for performance among other things. >The only right answer is universal apps(the web). The only "right" answer is that we should tolerate specific web apps only when the benefits outweigh the costs.