5 ms·
How many years have we been hearing this tale? And yet almost every major web site continues to bend over backwards to persuade us to install their battery-kil
by oneshot908 8y ago
How many years have we been hearing this tale? And yet almost every major web site continues to bend over backwards to persuade us to install their battery-killing surveillance system oops I mean mobile app.
So the solution now is even more battery-killing HTML + Javascript + Secret Sauce? Hell no...
PS Just say no to push like the Hulk says no to Banner.
All IMO of course but these days, I use my phone for Yelp, Google Maps, weather, GMail, stock prices, and little more. The improvement in battery life from 6-8 hours to 2+ days has been astounding and what it's drove me to the viewpoint I just espoused. Am I missing something here?
- zerostar07 8y agoMajor sites have devs to waste. For the rest of us web is a valid alternative. Strange, i use my phone mostly to browse stuff. I prefer the web version of Gmail cause i can switch between accounts and i also avoid all those annoying notifications.
- oneshot908 8y agoOn the flip side, if your service has craptastic web performance, I just won't use it. The mobile-web currently drives me crazy on phones (doubly so with nonsense like FB blocking access to messages unless I request the desktop site), and I find it barely usable on tablets.
- blub 8y agoWe've been hearing this tale for more than a decade and native apps are still better at pretty much everything. :) Web devs are a very optimistic bunch.
- oneshot908 8y agoAnd why wouldn't they be? the fewer abstraction layers between the app and the hardware, the more efficient it will usually be, no?
- vbezhenar 8y agoThey are not better at a single and simple thing: cost of development for multiple platforms. And it means everything, unless you're swimming in money.