78 ms·

Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

• jermaustin1 8y ago
  What is funny, is this is the opposite I heard on the podcast "The Pitch" when all of the investors were complaining that the developer built a web app first. I can't remember the product, but he justified it well, eventually they agreed, but wanted to see an app before investing.
• shams93 8y ago
  Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out. With a progressive web app if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without installing via the app store and without using up space on their device. Also don't need to pay Apple $100 a year but you have the same benefits as a native app. Now with wasm you can even include native performance from a progressive web app.
  • scarface74 8y ago
    On iOS you won’t get notifications or be able to run anything in the background. But if you are trying to start a business and the $100 a year you would have to pay to distribute your app will make or break you, you have bigger issues.
    • noobiemcfoob 8y ago
      Too many applications abuse notifications and background processing anyway. If you need those features, you have to convince of far more value before I'll install a thing.
      • scarface74 8y ago
        If you want an iOS app not to “abuse” background processing, there is a setting that will disable the ability on an app by app basis. Of course you have granular control over notifications and how they are presented on a per app basis.
      • billmalarky 8y ago
        I'd wager you are not a great representation of the market that 99% of apps serve. Apps abuse those features because it works well for their business.
        • M2Ys4U 8y ago
          >Apps abuse those features because it works well for their business. In the short-run anyway...
          • reaperducer 8y ago
            This is true. I allow certain apps to use notifications because there are things that I want to be notified about. My card balance from the Starbucks app, or breaking news from the New York Times app. Both of those companies started abusing notifications. Their apps are no longer on my phones.
        • noobiemcfoob 8y ago
          > I'd wager you are not a great representation of the market that 99% of apps serve I'd wager no one is. Snapchat has 200 million users. There's some 4 billion people on the internet. Niches are niches, and no one serves everyone.
          • mktguru 8y ago
            I wish "no one" was my customer then I could get a $40B IPO serving everyone :)
    • Jhndb 8y ago
      I think the point stands, and the article explicitely says "start with". Apps can come later in lots of cases. A personal example - I was hired to build the MVP Android app for a new greeting card company. 1 year later: It's been done for 6 months, no one's using it, no one wants to use it, everyone's using the web app.
    • onion2k 8y ago
      On iOS you won’t get notifications or be able to run anything in the background. Ok, but what are the downsides?
      • orev 8y ago
        As a user notifications are a problem, but as an app developer they absolutely work to drive engagement, which is why so many apps use them. So if you’re trying to run a business that’s a pretty important thing.
        • username223 8y ago
          > As a user notifications are a problem, but as an app developer... So do you develop apps but not use them? I can't think of a way the hypocrisy isn't shocking here. "Do unto others" and all that.
          • scarface74 8y ago
            I’ve developed software all of my career that I personally have no use for. I develop software to pay my bills. We are talking about notifications, not killing puppies.
            • username223 8y ago
              We're not talking about whether or not you are killing puppies -- I don't think you're a sadist. Just "make stuff you would want to use." Or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, if you prefer, "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
              • JohnFen 8y ago
                > Just "make stuff you would want to use." So I should quit my job developing enterprise software because I don't personally have a use for enterprise software?
    • asdjasldkjkljd 8y ago
      For now. PWAs keep improving. Give it a year. They're already basically fully-fledged apps on Android.
    • simplecomplex 8y ago
      Service workers allow for push notifications and other background tasks.
      • scarface74 8y ago
        iOS doesn’t support push notifications for web pages.
        • reaperducer 8y ago
          Are Safari push notifications desktop only? https://developer.apple.com/notifications/safari-push-notifications/ https://developer.apple.com/notifications/safari-push-notifi...
          • scarface74 8y ago
            Yep, desktop only https://www.izooto.com/blog/ios-push-notifications-safari https://www.izooto.com/blog/ios-push-notifications-safari And this might be why.... Web Push Notifications have clearly made difference in every marketing campaign it gets involved in.
    • cschep 8y ago
      Using email as a notification service works in this case. The user probably gets a notification for new emails.. at least if they do they chose to. :)
      • scarface74 8y ago
        Email delivery has its own set of problems - mostly spam filters. Even when the email does reach the end user, most people get so many emails it’s easy to get lost in the noise.
        • reaperducer 8y ago
          Using notifications to bypass spam filters speaks to the quality of the notifications you're sending. If your e-mail is important, people will find it. If your e-mail gets lost in the noise, then notification is probably not essential.
          • scarface74 8y ago
            Getting caught in spam filters has little to do with whether the email is legitimate - just whether it is seen as a bulk email.
        • cschep 8y ago
          It does have issues when it comes to getting users to do something they don't want to do, but it is more than good enough to communicate with users about something they actively want to do. I have no interest in the former.
    • tracker1 8y ago
      With cordova you can create a thin wrapper that can add those features you need, starting with a PWA and extending.
  • agildehaus 8y ago
    To add a progressive web app to the home screen on iOS, doesn't the user have to use the share menu (and even then, it's buried a bit -- the user has to page the share options at least once to find it)? There's no way to display a prompt to add it, like with Chrome/Firefox on Android? That's how it was the last time I checked, and it was enough for my employer to say no.
    • TrueGeek 8y ago
      Yes. There is no way to prompt the user and, to make it worse, it can only be done from Safari. If the user is using a browser from the app store (like Chrome) it can't be done at all.
    • clarky07 8y ago
      Yeah it is massively worse user experience than installing an app from the app store. I feel like anyone suggesting it is better has an agenda of some sort. It's objectively worse in every way for the user. Suggesting the $100 is a barrier to entry is absolutely laughable. If you are going to talk about money talk about the 30% cut they take. That's really the only reasonable argument in favor of them.
  • y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
    > Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube. I don't even have those apps. If I did, my battery would be dead in a couple of hours. If I need to use those platforms, I do it through a web browser and usually I use a different browser (e.g. duckduckgo) isolated from my other browsing habits.
    • fireattack 8y ago
      duckduckgo has a browser now?
      • y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
        Pick your poison: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduckgo.mobile.android&hl=en_US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduckgo... https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/duckduckgo-privacy-browser/id663592361?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/duckduckgo-privacy-browser/i...
        • funkydata 8y ago
          I did not know they made one. Thanks!
    • funkydata 8y ago
      Does Duckduckgo makes a browser now? Or do you mean that like most of non geeky folks you access websites not by typing an url in the address bar of a browser but instead by going through a search engine (in this instance Duckduckgo)?
  • jklinger410 8y ago
    >if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without installing via the app store and without using up space on their device As far as I'm concerned, until evidence to the contrary is provided, most people either don't do this or know how. Relying on a pinned app for smart phones is a good way to kill your startup. >you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out In fact, the statistics prove[1] that this is false. Most app installs are to try it out, and promptly delete it. Most users will delete your app shortly after installing it. Informed opinions are nice to share, uninformed ones not so much. [1]https://www.emarketer.com/content/most-apps-get-deleted-within-a-week https://www.emarketer.com/content/most-apps-get-deleted-with...
    • ryancodes 8y ago
      > Most users will delete your app shortly after installing it. Which is why it is so crucial to focus on the core utility of the app. If the app is fun to use, great. But the apps that stick around provide services that are essential to the user.
    • reificator 8y ago
      > >you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out > In fact, the statistics prove[1] that this is false. Most app installs are to try it out, and promptly delete it. Most users will delete your app shortly after installing it. I'm really not following how this disproves what was being said. They were saying it's difficult to get people to even install for a test run, and you're saying most installs are test runs. There's nothing mutually exclusive about those two statements. > Informed opinions are nice to share, uninformed ones not so much. What a pompous response to make when you're not actually falsifying anything in their post.
      • jklinger410 8y ago
        >They were saying it's difficult to get people to even install for a test run How is it difficult to get someone to install something for a test run when like 90% of app installs are test runs? So you're saying it's difficult to get someone to install your app at all, and that has nothing to do with your product or your marketing, but it has something to do with the technology? And the PWA experience of pinning things to your home screen, which we have absolutely no reason to believe is widely done, is a better option? There are 200 billion some odd app installs per year (primarily for test runs), there are ??? mobile PWA app home screen pins per year. I'd like to see you try and support OPs claim rather than argue about my comment.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • endorphone 8y ago
    We've been hearing the same pitch for literally years. Heck, I've made some of them myself: "This is it, people! Native apps have been rendered unnecessary!" No PWA competes with a native experience. Not performance wise, not usability wise, and ultimately for the developer not even development wise. It may still make a lot of sense, and there are a lot of arguments for web apps, but the enthusiasm in this discussion seems disconnected from reality. Indeed, right now we're seeing a big uptick in Instant Apps on Android -- go to a webpage and it actually loads a native app -- and I fully expect the same to appear on iOS. There is a bit of app exhaustion, though I'd say it's much more significant on Android where users have been taught that it's user beware. It certainly isn't a technical limit, though.
    • egeozcan 8y ago
      > (paraphrasing) No PWA competes with a native experience even development wise I'm personally too spoiled by the React debugging experience, and I'm saying this as a developer who mainly does C#. On the other hand, I know many developers who can't stand a line of JavaScript. The answer is here a huge "it depends, really".
      • chaostheory 8y ago
        For those who can't stand javascript, typescript was made for you
        • stephenhuey 8y ago
          ...and for those who want even more improvement over JS than just TS, there's Dart in the Flutter world.
          • chaostheory 8y ago
            Why Dart instead of Typescript? How well does it integrate with npm modules? i.e. do I have to reinvent a lot of wheels compared to using Typescript?
  • have_faith 8y ago
    > With a progressive web app if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen Does anyone even know they can do that? I've never seen anyone do it "in the wild". Would love to see any stats around usage of pwa's added to home screen.
    • timdavila 8y ago
      I run a PWA and can track this based on the "standalone" property. But what's more telling is customer requests. It's a confusing request that it seems like many potential customers haven't seen before. Lots of people ask me to "just put it in the app store" despite having an FAQ with instructions on how to add to the home screen. Many more say they will become customers "when you have an app" Because of this, I'm working on making my UI more app like and using Cordova to publish it to app stores. edit: My app is still pretty small but the percentage of logged in users who have ever loaded from the PWA is < 5%
      • TomK32 8y ago
        Users always have to be educated, whether it's PWA or how to pronounce the @ symbol a mere 20 years ago.
    • plexicle 8y ago
      Chrome on Android will show a banner to add it to your home screen.
      • timdavila 8y ago
        True, the situation on Android is much better than iOS. Also after you do this, you get an icon in your app drawer and not just the homescreen.
        • saagarjha 8y ago
          iOS doesn’t have an app drawer, so I’m not quite sure where you’re going with your comparison…
  • burtonator 8y ago
    PWAs are becoming reasonable for mobile devices and could really help with some apps for initial distribution and usage. I might implement the first version of mobile reading within Polar (https://getpolarized.io/ https://getpolarized.io/) by using a PWA. The general idea is to have both a PWA and a native app. The PWA gets the users addicted and then you can have an 'install app' button within the PWA. If your app is insanely complicated it's possible to have your app as just a PWA on steroids (though not always straight forward). We're using Firebase (just wrote up a post about it here): https://getpolarized.io/2019/01/03/building-cloud-sync-on-google-firebase.html https://getpolarized.io/2019/01/03/building-cloud-sync-on-go... ... and the cool thing about Firebase is that there are SDKs for basically all platforms with really solid mobile support.
  • scarface74 8y ago
    Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/app-store-caps-record-breaking-2018-with-blockbuster-holiday-week/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/app-store-caps-record...
    • jdietrich 8y ago
      The list of top grossing apps paints a rather different and rather unflattering picture of the app store economy. https://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/top-grossing-apps/ https://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/top-grossing-apps/
      • scarface74 8y ago
        I agree completely. What’s surprising is that Spotify is still a top grossing app even though they haven’t allowed new in app subscriptions for a year or two. I guess those are legacy subscriptions. But on the other hand, that also goes against the narrative that PWA’s will replace native apps anytime soon. Most of the apps on the list: 1. Require some type of DRM (streaming media) 2. Take advantage of in app consumables like games where the immediacy of being able to capture the whales through in app purchases make sense. 3. Need the performance of native apps.
  • ransom1538 8y ago
    After years of experience: 0) Native means you get notifications: APNS, GCM. 1) If you don't go native, you go SEO. SEO is hard.
    • NightlyDev 8y ago
      Web has had notifications for years too.
      • jurmous 8y ago
        Not on iOS. https://caniuse.com/#feat=notifications https://caniuse.com/#feat=notifications
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • rorykoehler 8y ago
        I have never clicked yes to allow web notifications in my life. I have only once added a site as an icon on my mobile. The whole premise of this article is false. The real answer to whether to start with a site or an app is it depends. At Bibimapp we have an app [0] requiring sign up etc (launching beta next week) and a related site which is free to browse which provides value but approaching the problem space from a different angle. The site is essentially the top of the funnel. [0] https://bibimapp.com/ https://bibimapp.com/
      • ransom1538 8y ago
        "Web has had notifications for years too." Yeah. But people don't use desktops anymore.
        • pjmlp 8y ago
          So what are all those laptops on every coffee shop I go to?
    • menckenjr 8y ago
      Native means you also get background processing and access to things like geolocation and camera feed w/o needing a plugin.
  • BucketSort 8y ago
    Can you provide data to substantiate your claims? I'd truly like to know if this is true, because my intuition and experience tell me the opposite. People like downloading and trying out new apps. I also disagree with the premise of this post. Many people exclusively use their phones and would never utilize a web version of an app.
    • tracker1 8y ago
      I think it depends... it's probably bias to more technical users vs moms, dads and kids generally. I know I'm far less inclined to use a native app for something new. I also hate when I can't do updates from my desktop. I use linux, windows and mac regularly. Of course via cordova, it's easy enough to create a thin wrapper and add a few bits for notifications and better capture integration (if you need photos/video, etc). Since I'm mostly doing react these days, I'd consider react-native a natural next step.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    > Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device This argument has been given a few times here. But I question whether web applications are a solution. Aren't these just more applications that people are overwhelmed with but harder to find and use? If you've got a brilliant new app (web or mobile) I'm still fatigued either way. The mental effort is the same. Saying the mobile apps are "maxed out" seems to me to apply to web apps in just the same way.
    • Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
      I think they were referring to RAM or storage space rather than human fatigue or mental effort, although I'm not a native English speaker so I may be misinterpreting. Indeed, there are many low-end smartphones that run out of storage space after one or two years even without installing anything, just with the automatic updates of the preinstalled apps (Facebook is a major offender here, why does their app grow more and more?). Being forced to install an app to use a service when you are in this situation is highly frustrating.
      • rorykoehler 8y ago
        What year are we in? I've got a $200 phone with 128gb storage and 4gb ram. It will be a long time before I can max this out if at all.
        • Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
          Not everyone buys a new phone frequently, and not everyone can or will spend $200 on a smartphone without a second thought, especially at the global scale. Smartphones are getting better and hopefully this problem will be irrelevant in a few years, but I still know plenty of people for whom it's still very real at the moment.
          • rorykoehler 8y ago
            Sure, I was part of a startup designing apps for emerging markets and I understand the restrictions but I think these restrictions changed somewhat for phones bought from 2018 on. I just returned from 2 weeks in India and it was common to see people in the streets with ~$200 phones
  • beckler 8y ago
    I think PWAs are still considered more of a novelty. If they really ever catch on, I could see where apple might require you to start hosting some kind of cross-signed cert or something that you can only get from Apple to install/use them.
    • choward 8y ago
      > If they really ever catch on, I could see where apple might require you to start hosting some kind of cross-signed cert or something that you can only get from Apple to install/use them. And you would find this acceptable? I would find this appalling. Apple can charge for the App Store because over the overhead. It hosts the servers that have to transfer the apps. It runs an App Store to help with discoverability. It also maintains the API developers use. In the case of PWAs, none of these are true. There is no overhead for running an App Store for Apple. I could see there being a fee to be in the App Store. That should be up to the developer though. If you are doing the work of getting people to install the app yourself, you owe them nothing. In Apple's defense, they do have to do the work of building in PWA support to iOS/Safari. But if you are paying over $1,000 for a device you better damn well be able to install a PWA.
      • pjmlp 8y ago
        Microsoft does it, if the PWAs are signed, they get full access to UWP APIs, just like any other native app.
  • Const-me 8y ago
    That's only the case for useless apps. Try creating a useful one. For example, here's my old hobby project, now open source, that got more than 100k installs with zero marketing: https://github.com/Const-me/SkyFM https://github.com/Const-me/SkyFM
  • hiccuphippo 8y ago
    I've never added a PWA to my device. How do you find them? I suppose they don't get added to the store so no way to search for them there. Do they show some popup when you visit their site? Is there some directory of PWAs?
  • ghostly_s 8y ago
    What does "maxed out on apps on their device" mean?
  • JohnFen 8y ago
    > With a progressive web app if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without installing via the app store and without using up space on their device. Just no. As near as I can tell, PWAs are worse than apps from a security point of view. The odds approach zero that I'd ever dare to use one.
• neonhat 8y ago
  Mobile web apps are the future, thanks to WebAssembly.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    This is wishful thinking with no logical argument behind it. WebAssembly replaces JavaScript but the rest of the experience (a web browser) is exactly the same. What would compel users to care?
    • neonhat 8y ago
      > This is wishful thinking with no logical argument behind it. 1. A web app developed using WebAssembly offers performance indistinguishable from that of a native app. 2. Since the web app offers native performance, there's practically no need for a native app to exist in the first place. Why should developers waste their time developing for multiple platforms when a single mobile app works flawlessly? 3. This is great for users because the app is highly performant, universally accessible, and doesn't require installation.
      • wvenable 8y ago
        > A web app developed using WebAssembly offers performance indistinguishable from that of a native app. If the performance of your app is limited by the DOM, this will make no difference. Most applications are not doing heavily calculations, they're animating an non-native HTML UI so WebAssembly will make no difference. Raw calculation performance is not the biggest issue for mobile apps. > Why should developers waste their time developing for multiple platforms when a single mobile app works flawlessly? Nothing about WebAssembly will make web apps work "more flawlessly" than web apps work right now. Since WebAssembly doesn't change the user experience of acquiring and using applications it will make no difference, from today, on adoption on web applications. I'd go so far as to say that users actually don't like going into Mobile Safari run mobile applications and WebAssembly isn't going to change that.
      • beefalo 8y ago
        Javascript is already fast enough for native apps as can be seen with things like cordova. Even with WebAssemply the layout and ui draw will still need a browser engine which is where the real difference between native and mobile is.
• revskill 8y ago
  Understand what you'll build first. Shape your API second. Only then you can build anything you want.
• 0xCMP 8y ago
  There is one side of me that wishes more things were Mobile Apps. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that worse is better here and that any founder should focus on Web unless it's not possible to do it on the web (yet). I'd much prefer a native app (or actually feels native; Well done RN is good enough for me), but the cost of creating and maintaining one is often too high when you don't know what will work. As a web developer (react, etc.) I kind of wish I could have more time to work on native apps instead.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    Is it a matter of UI? I find it interesting that the "web app with native UI" model never took on. There were a few tries (e.g. XUL), and now Expo seems to be a version of that for RN (though focused on testing), yet for various - seemingly circumstantial - reasons it never became a fully fledged alternative to browser apps and installed apps.
    • rimliu 8y ago
      Because it solves no problems. Unless you consider “we want web tech everyhere” to be a valid problem. “Cross-platform” development may look like a problem worth solving, but the dolution is a lie. If you use native UI you will have to deal with a native tech to a degree. Is (cost + pain)/benefits worth it—that’s up to you. But seeing how RN stuggled with the thing that’s trivial in native—navigation stack—I’d stay away. Also these bridged technologies will always lag behind and can be really painful after significant updates to UIKit.
• Spivak 8y ago
  > An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month. I think you mean $10/year.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    Web hosting will cost more than $99/year so not all the costs of the web application are factored into this article.
    • johnday 8y ago
      Sure, but there's a bit of apples and oranges here - for example, any modern internet-connected app would also need a server backend.
      • wvenable 8y ago
        But once we talking about that money, $100 a year is peanuts.
        • johnday 8y ago
          True. It's also worth noting that a $5/mo VPS can get you surprisingly far with respect to well-designed websites and services.
          • wvenable 8y ago
            You shouldn't run a production environment on a single $5/mo VPS.
            • johnday 8y ago
              It depends on your speed, concurrent user capacity, and uptime requirements (among other things). I run two production servers off two separate $5/mo VPSs, one getting a few thousand hits a day. No issues whatsoever.
• ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  A handful of social media platforms have launched that I've wholly missed because they didn't bother to have a web version. As a Windows Mobile user, I couldn't install your app if I wanted to, and I spend a lot more time at my desk than staring at my phone.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    As a Windows Mobile user, you're too small and niche of a market to care about.
• sinatra 8y ago
  IMHO, the reasons mentioned are not very convincing. Your goal, when starting a product, is to find whether you serve a real user need or not. So, start with a website or a mobile app depending on what suits your users needs better. Where would a user naturally go (web or mobile) for that need? That's the platform you start with.
  • diminoten 8y ago
    It takes longer to get to market with an app, especially if its your first. No contact with users == death.
    • wvenable 8y ago
      But you also only get really once chance that with that user. Give them a crappy experience and they'll never come back. A web app is already starting at -100 points.
      • jMyles 8y ago
        > Give them a crappy experience and they'll never come back. Is that even true for a website though?
      • rpedela 8y ago
        In the early days, that is actually okay. Unless you did a large marketing campaign (you shouldn't), the number of people who never come back because of your crappy MVP will be small. And the group will likely be small enough where your product doesn't get a bad reputation either. But you absolutely need to get feedback from those users who never come back so that eventually the product gets better and gets traction. I think tools to collect that indirect feedback (e.g. click heatmaps) are more mature on web overall. Collecting direct feedback, talking to users, is equally hard regardless of web or mobile.
      • diminoten 8y ago
        ...in absolutely no way is this true. Where did you learn this? Who taught you that websites are 100 points worse (on whatever scale, you never say) than mobile apps?
• artur_makly 8y ago
  finally, someone said it.
• hepidad 8y ago
  On technical aspect, it definitely web first. Before a native apps, it need web app --> web services --> native apps.
• cntlzw 8y ago
  How about start with a product that people would actually use? If it is a website, fine. If it is a mobile app, fine. Don't sacrifice business opportunities because of early tech choices.
  • csours 8y ago
    To me, you have to have a really damn good reason to start with an app. Distribution is hell.
    • clarky07 8y ago
      how so? click a button and download to device? now you have an icon that the user sees every day. How is the web better than that?
      • guntars 8y ago
        Are you saying you download more apps than you visit websites? I highly doubt it.
        • wasdfff 8y ago
          People only go to websites on mobile for one off things or they absolutely lack storage on their phone. Anything visited with any regularity demands an app instal, because bookmarks are clumsy on mobile and typing into the address bar on iOS at least has been frustrating since version 1 because of the lack of any spellcheck, even if you are very obviously typing a complete sentence or phrase, and how terrible moving the cursor can be with a touchscreen. Not a lot of people know you can add a website to the homescreen, either.
      • kkhire 8y ago
        there's a big difference between typing a URL into a web browser & downloading an app: 1. go to the app store 2. search for it and find the right one 3. make sure you have the right amount of space for it 4. download it 5. place it on the 5th screen of your phone 6. never see it
• sjroot 8y ago
  The real answer to this question? (Surprise!) It depends. I have worked on a side project for the last year or so that will have a website and a mobile application. It has social elements, so ultimately I decided to prioritize the mobile application, because that is where users have access to their contacts, and do most of their communication with their friends and family. There are, of course, other business ideas that would be better suited to a website (or electron app?): work-related tools, dashboards, etc. A lot of people on here are talking about PWAs which are amazing, but iOS Safari is missing the Web Push API. Unfortunately, that makes the effort nearly futile because you have to build a separate mobile app anyway. If you are an Apple engineer and can help get that shipped, I will buy you a nice dinner. If you're an Apple recruiter, hire me so I can help ship it! :)
  • mcny 8y ago
    > If you are an Apple engineer and can help get that shipped, I will buy you a nice dinner. If you're an Apple recruiter, hire me so I can help ship it! :) Not that I know anything not known publicly but I suspect the reason Apple iOS Safari does not have Web Push API is not because they lack developer resources to write the code to get it done. Apple is under tremendous pressure to increase revenue from its "services" right now so it seems a bad time to strengthen PWAs.
    • palidanx 8y ago
      Wouldn't you say though if that push notifications were allowed PWAs would cannibalize the revenue of the ios app store? It doesn't seem like apple would have much incentive to do this as PWAs would eventually compete with their own platform.
      • scarface74 8y ago
        Apple makes most of its app revenue from in app purchases and most of that is for consumables for games. The types of apps that could be a PWA wouldnt make Apple any money.
      • sjroot 8y ago
• jrochkind1 8y ago
  Incidental to the main topic of the article (which I hope I don't distract from), but: > Browsers automatically translate text, Just Chrome not "browsers", no?
• menzoic 8y ago
  I built a crypto wallet / portfolio tracker that is much more useful as a mobile app. I can imagine how expanding it to a website could make sense down the road, but the utility is in quick access to transfer funds and check your portfolio which would be a pain on mobile web. I used Expo (platform for React Native) which made it arguably easier than deploying a website. I also get instant updates too without having to resubmit to the play/app store, and its cross platform.
• verbify 8y ago
  That's my feelings, although I've seen so many successful app-only startups that I feel I'm missing something that these startups grasp. E.g. in the UK Monzo, an app-only bank, won't allow you to access your statements, do transfers, or pretty much do anything to manage your account on the web, and is one of the most popular challenger banks.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    Most of the points in the article are for the benefit of the developer (easier updating, lower dev cost, fewer platforms) and not for the benefit of the end user. If the goal is to make a product better for yourself then make a web application. If your goal is to make a product users will like then make mobile applications. The article talks about how users don't install apps but signing up for a website (enter email, invent new password, wait for password vertification email, click link) is a far larger barrier to entry than just finding the app in the store and installing it.
    • guntars 8y ago
      Just because everyone and their mother adds a signup flow just to be able to use their web app doesn't mean it has to be done that way. You can add the signup flow after you've already demonstrated the value to the user and when it would provide additional value, like saving things to your account. An anonymous user on the web is equivalent to some anonymous user downloading your app from the app store.
      • wvenable 8y ago
        It's true. And the article's example actually doesn't have a signup. But often demonstrating value to the user will require multiple accesses and you don't want them to lose the data they've already entered. It's probably better to force a signup then potentially lose everything the end user has done in your app. For a mobile app, you can store data locally or on a server keyed to the user without any potential for loss and without a signup.
    • mobjack 8y ago
• shehryarrr 8y ago
  Depends on your applications use cases and what is needed to make it function. No matter what you're doing you should look for the quickest and cheapest option as long as it fulfills your needs. If I'm building pro grade video editing software I'm likely going to pick desktop technologies, if I'm building something that requires location or a camera I'm going to pick native apps. If the service is just reading data from a server and maybe writing a little with not too much interaction probably a mobile website or a PWA. Not new advice, just pick the right tool for the job, not what's flashy.
• mr_puzzled 8y ago
  > So, we built the web’s first video meme generator. Within weeks, Kapwing had hundreds of meme creators using the website daily thanks to the magic of SEO. I want to learn this magic too! OP can you give us a brief overview about your SEO strategy?
• briandear 8y ago
  If $100 per year for the Apple Developer program is too much, is whatever you’d be making an app for even worth it? Not saying app-first is or isn’t the answer, just questioning a criticism of an expense that’s comes out to $8.25 per month.
  • TACIXAT 8y ago
    That expense isn't high, but you also have to own (unless something has changed in recent years) a Apple device to develop on and an Apple device to test on. I own a Linux laptop and an Android phone. If I wanted to write an iOS app I think I would be needing about $2k in devices.
• ThomPete 8y ago
  And sometimes even start with a mailing list (especially anything marketplace related)
• PaulHoule 8y ago
  I am moving towards "Windows app first"; Windows still has dominant market share among Desktop users. You might impress investors and developers with Mac and Linux support, but far too many people are developing for platforms where the users are not and wondering why their stuff isn't catching on.
  • egeozcan 8y ago
    I've been trying to find time to give Avalonia (a cross-platform desktop GUI kit for .NET Core) a try. https://ptupitsyn.github.io/Cross-Platform-DotNet-UI/ https://ptupitsyn.github.io/Cross-Platform-DotNet-UI/
    • cpburns2009 8y ago
      Looks interesting. I've been curious about the state of .NET Core for cross-platform applications. Rant: Why does every cross-platform framework target GTK on Linux rather than Qt? [1] [1] https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia
  • freehunter 8y ago
    Windows OS has a dominant market share yes, but do those people download and install a lot of desktop applications? Especially on a platform like Windows, where a browser can do almost anything a native app can do?
    • PaulHoule 8y ago
      The counter-argument is that it is that everyone has a web site and if you want to make something that is really different and better you need to do something different. For instance I use em client as a mail program and fastmail for the back end. It's a lot like MS Outlook except that it actually works. I prefer it to GMail. With the rush to Electron we see developers leaving so much performance on the table, particularly with the rapidly increasing core counts. There's also an argument that the "web" is no longer an open platform but is now becoming the "Google Platform". For instance you cannot trust conventional web sites from a privacy viewpoint now that most of them have numerous third-party trackers, download content from multiple CDNs, etc. This deviance is not so normalized for desktop apps.
• sgt 8y ago
  "No one wants to download apps anymore" I stopped reading there. The major advantage of the App Store (primarily for consumer apps though) is the fact that there's some kind of filtering at place. If I find a quality app, I want to actually pay for it. In fact, if it's a good app - then I prefer to pay, as it often ensures some kind of continuity in the app's lifecycle.
  • johannes1234321 8y ago
    What kind of filtering is that? The fact that there is (hopefully) no malware? - A browser should prevent that as well and has similar failure rate as app review. The app store doesn't tell me anything about whether it's useful or of high quality or anything. From my perspective many apps are single tab browsers with additional spying capabilities.
    • sgt 8y ago
      For one, you have a chance of actually finding quality native apps. Web apps are not completely optimal no matter how you try to sell it. I have nothing specifically against hybrid or web apps (they have their place), but speaking from personal experience I've had most luck with apps that were (1) native (2) cost a few pennies. I say this wearing the consumer or end-user hat. As a developer, I also prefer writing native apps (iOS and Swift), but I certainly understand the occasional disadvantages here too. This is in fact why I'm also developing a Flutter app at the moment - we needed a cross platform MVP but there's too little time and resources to develop for both platforms. But given enough time and resources (e.g. post MVP) I'd mostly go native.
      • jdietrich 8y ago
        >For one, you have a chance of actually finding quality native apps. Really? I can't recall ever finding a useful app through the app store. It's so littered with junk apps and deceptive copycats that discovery is a miserable experience.
        • 8y ago
• egeozcan 8y ago
  Do the PWAs have the option to be shared to when added to home-screen? Like, can you share to them from other apps?
  • agentdrtran 8y ago
    Not as of yet, at least not with any PWA I've used.
  • pjmlp 8y ago
    On UWP and ChromeOS you can do everything if the PWA is packaged via the store, as they get access to native APIs.
  • darinf 8y ago
    https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/12/web-share-target https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/12/web-share-...
• avree 8y ago
  >An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month. "A developer license is $99/year, but a website is less than $120/year!" Very weird statement.
  • FiReaNG3L 8y ago
    Looks like a mistake, domains are $10/year
    • giarc 8y ago
      Maybe OP meant hosting.
      • fragsworth 8y ago
        If you use Lambda or some other auto-scaling thing, hosting is effectively free until you get traffic.
      • scottmcdot 8y ago
        Hi there, apologies for replying to a completely irrelevant thread (HN locks down replies), but was curious if you are planning to Show HN your project [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18611208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18611208
        • giarc 8y ago
          Hi - yes I am soon. Just got side tracked with holidays etc. I'm also in the middle of trying to find a buyer for my other side business. Flippa produces a lot of interest, not sure how many are just tire kickers though.
          • scottmcdot 8y ago
            Cool, thanks for the reply.
          • 8y ago
• softfalcon 8y ago
  I feel like this is coming from a good place. They're trying to help the majority of devs choose the right platform for their project to be the most successful. As many before me have commented, the choice of platform depends on your situation, the technical limitations that come with it, and what kind of experience you want to deliver. You have to use what makes sense and delivers what you need to satisfy your users. End of story. Silver bullet solutions make a good headline, but they rarely address all possible concerns of a specific problem. Especially not with a broad audience.
• casper345 8y ago
  80% of apps are uninstalled in the first 10min (especially if they ask for information or creating an account). Once uninstalled very unlikely they will ever install again. In my dev shop, I always advise clients to look into website MVP over apps unless IT IS CRITICAL to the functionality. Websites can always bring back ppl who were initially uninterested. Faster development/instant updates. Better tracking and UX anazyling. Edit: also better collaboration tools.
  • ncallaway 8y ago
    I completely agree. This is also my advice to clients that initially ask for a mobile app as well. Unless you _know_ you have a successful business, a website/webapp MVP is almost always a cheaper way to validate your business concept and a cheaper way to iterate as you develop it.
  • wvenable 8y ago
    How many websites ever get passed the signup stage? I often will leave as soon as I'm tasked with creating an account and I'm not likely to come back.
    • rixrax 8y ago
      What is especially frustrating that many sites don’t allow Mailinator and other similar ‘one-time’ email systems to be used for registering an account. No way I am going to give you my email address up front before seeing the product. Now the solution is of course to have a separate gmail account to register. Most sites still allow user+site@gmail.com address syntax so that I can sometimes see who are leaking where. I would be curious to know if there is some credible A/B testing showing that for a relatively unknown new product blocking Mailinators and it’s kin somehow results as a better conversion?
      • imhoguy 8y ago
        There is a lot of temporary email services constantly popping into the Internet every month. Some of them are open-sourced so one can make own quick disposable email or forwarding service with cheap domain. "Resistance Is Futile" - no way any exclusion list can keep up to cover them.
• ecp9 8y ago
  I don't even bother installing apps anymore, I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. I got my core 10 apps and haven't bought a new one in a year.
  • awat 8y ago
    This is my position as well. Unless your app is going to provide substantial features over your website or operating system like functionality. I'm not even going to try it out.
    • criddell 8y ago
      I don't go to new websites anymore either. Just like I have a handful of core apps, I have about he same number of websites I visit. I think the only webapps I use are Workflowy (love it) and Slack (hate it).
      • james_s_tayler 8y ago
        Workflowy has updated their app for Android and it's really good! I'm a pretty heavy user of it, and it was a godsend to have a nice official Android client that works well. Make use of the web lots on the desktop but it's probably 50/50 desktop/mobile. Love them both . The only two things workflowy is missing is (1) being able to embed pictures and (2) being able to hyperlink to other nodes to make it act like a graph. It'd be the absolute perfect tool if it had that.
        • criddell 8y ago
          I only use it on the desktop and there I use it in the browser. They have a desktop app but it isn't very good. Embedding pictures sounds like a nice idea, but I can't imagine how they could do it and have it look good. If I were them, I probably wouldn't add images. I kind of hope they resist the urge to keep adding features to Workflowy. It feels done to me and I like simple, focused tools.
  • 8y ago
• NightlyDev 8y ago
  Most of my mobile users(64 %) has the page added to the home screen, and it's awesome. There is however one problem in all things web: Apple. The amount of bugs in Safari on iOS is incredible and the developers should be ashamed of their work. Safari is literally worse than IE6 was. But sure, users can just switch to Chrome.. Oh, wait, we're talking iOS here, so there is only one engine, and that engine is broken. So the only option is to get a decent phone, aka not an iPhone. Like, how freaking hard can it be to make a browser that doesn't need to be restarted just to make touch or keyboard working again?
  • fermuch 8y ago
    Is there a way to know when a site is loaded from the home screen instead of the browser?
    • EmielMols 8y ago
      Yes, window.navigator.standalone
    • NightlyDev 8y ago
      As the previous guy said you can check for standalone on iOS. You can also add an parameter to the URL so it opens eg. /?homescreen or something like that.
  • marcinzm 8y ago
    Apple has a financial incentive for making the browser as bad as possible for anything complicated. After all, they don’t get a 30% cut from browser apps.
    • arthurofbabylon 8y ago
      Actually, they do get a cut from "browser apps" in the sense that they are paid by a big search/surveillance-based ad company to make their search engine default in the browser. And again, they have a huge financial incentive to make the browser as good as possible because it makes the hardware as useful and wonderful as possible, which are currently the two most important factors for the most successful product that our planet has seen yet. I'm kind of surprised by these 'browser is so bad' comments. Anyone here tried to make a browser before? Anyone make one less buggy than Safari?
• baby_wipe 8y ago
  (disclosure: biased iOS dev) If your app contains significant user interaction and input, I strongly prefer a native app. If I'm just consuming text, then I prefer a website.
• craftoman 8y ago
  Don't forget that clients always get the lastest updated version of the app. I mean, I remember that everytime you decide to change something on the API, things go really bad because of the old versions and people just give you negative feedback because they didn't update the app. You have to be extremely cautious.
• let_var 8y ago
  IMO it's a misleading premise to begin with "Start with a website, not a mobile". One should try to stay true to target audience. If your product justifies "Mobile first" approach, mobile app is what one should start with. Few years ago, I started with a website prototype with an end goal of porting UI elements and business logic to mobile. With some exception of reusing business logic, most UI elements required redo.
• cturhan 8y ago
  Domain is $10 but it’s for a single domain. For every website you will buy one. In addition, play store asks one-time $25 fee. You can submit as many apps to app stores as you want. Generally, you have to do more things during web development such as SEO, cross-browser testing, meta tags. In addition, you need to deal with responsive design. Mobile apps are easier easier to develop because apps display one thing at once while web sites and apps display a few components in one screen.
• v1k65m677 8y ago
  I had similar idea for my 1st game. I don't like the idea of downloading native app for everything. I bought a (.)app domain to host my game. I never build website before, although I have decent understanding of HTML and CSS, so people suggested me to start with a static website first in HTML+CSS. Result was a terrible website www.chessxplode.com Next was to learn JS, React, HTML5/WebGL, cloud computing and more to build the game. Instead I decided to focus on what I know well, game programming in native iOS. Once native game was ready, focus shifted to grow the game.
  • pjmlp 8y ago
    Gaming is one of the use cases where native wins, specially since WebGL 2.0 isn't widespread and it only exposes a subset of OpenGL ES 3.0, let alone GL ES 3.1, 3.2, Metal or Vulkan. However if the game is a Flash like one, then WebGL/WebAssembly might just be enough.
• k__ 8y ago
  Most companies hire me to build a mobile app because they think App/Play-Store are the places to be, marketing wise.
• jwr 8y ago
  The most important factor is the cost. Developing and maintaining a mobile app is expensive, and often there is no justification for spending that money, especially given that most users expect apps to be free.
• dbllxr 8y ago
  Wouldn't you have the best of both worlds with Progressive Web Apps? I thought that development strategy is supposed to solve this very problem.
• EGreg 8y ago
  Easier said than done. This is why when everyone has switched to React Native we have stuck with PhoneGap. Might we be ridiculed? Maybe. But we can easily make apps like this: https://coinect.app https://coinect.app Here is my logic! 1. Invites have a URL. 2. The person doesn’t have the app yet, so they can get taken to the Website or the app store. 3. If Website, then if invite token is unique we can automatically confirm their phone number or email, and get everyone who has them in their contacts to follow them, so they instantly get friends and socially generated content they can interact with. 4. And then redirect to the app store. Then when the app is downloaded, it can open a BrowserTab inside and get a signed NewSessionID for the app. (Note: this ain’t oauth folks, our server uses a secret to sign and verify its own issued payloads that are relayed through clients like this.) 5. The result: zero passwords needed, tons of steps skipped. But then you think, what do you need the app for? Android has Chrome Notifications. So you only need it for Contacts. So you place buttons to download app in appropriate places. 6. If you’re gonna make a website anyway, then why not reuse it inside WebViews to not duplicate work? 7. But it’s not easy to make a website working across all browsers and devices and take advantage of touch and cameras on phones, and work differently on mobile phones (with sms://...) and QR codes and so on. There has to be a platform that does everything for you so you can just focus on building your app. Same as Mac and Windows handled GUI for all apps so you could focus on building your app. We need a Web OS for apps. 8. So basically, after 7 years of work, you arrive at this: https://qbix.com/platform https://qbix.com/platform
• jammygit 8y ago
  I read recently that only 0.01% of android apps recoup their development costs. I only understand android apps in terms of supporting other existing products and services in that context https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2648515 https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2648515
• tomphoolery 8y ago
  My main issue with app development, as I've been saying for close to a decade now, is that with _any_ app dev, you're automatically at the whim of whoever created the platform. Google, Apple, or Microsoft. We say a lot of things about how Google is trying to "take over" the web, but as long as there are Firefox users, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. No one owns the web, that's why it's still the best place for a startup. Especially Apple. Their iOS app development team uses the App Store as a proving ground for ideas that work well, then re-implement the features most users love in a crappy/cartoon-style way and attempt to out-promote the original idea. Examples: Todos => Reminders, Flipboard => News, EasyMeasure => Measure, Skype => FaceTime
  • ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your position, but those examples for Apple are really poor ones, imo. Except for Measure, all of those are obviously features or default apps that a platform is going to offer. The fact that Apple didn’t have a reminders app at launch and then they added one later hardly means they ripped off “Todos”, which I’ve never even heard of. And Skype isn’t primarily an iOS app at all, which makes it a poor example of the phenomenon you’re describing. Also, Apple doesn’t make any money off those apps, so I’m really, really skeptical that they’re scanning the App Store for successful apps they can rip off.
• carlosdp 8y ago
  > "whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month." Small typo there, I think you mean $10 a year.
• radium3d 8y ago
  Or better yet, why not make your website the app? Flutter.io comes to mind. This will save you considerable time because you won't have to maintain as much native code on android or ios since your app is essentially a native browser window. You will only have one small codebase to maintain and it is cross platform.
• ycmimi 8y ago
  case by case. you cannot start uber via a website.
• rifung 8y ago
  > According to research from the Chrome team at Google and others, people spend more time on mobile apps than they do on mobile websites. [...] 90% [of app time] is spent in a person’s five top apps. To me this just sounds like people are drawing incorrect conclusions from the statistics? It doesn't seem like people spend more time on apps necessarily but that they download the apps for the things they use the most. I imagine most people are less likely to try something if it's only available as an app. Having to download something just increases the barrier to entry like a very long page load.
  • hahabrew 8y ago
    so one assumption that could be made is that mobileapp use takes longer to accomplish anything compared to using web
• hdlothia 8y ago
  .x
• dlandis 8y ago
  > Web products get internationalization for free, which is important for a small, cash-strapped team. I like the article but this statement is not true. Internationalization is quite a big topic and there is no way to automatically make a site internationalized for "free".
• rickdg 8y ago
  Start with where the money is, which is usually iOS, which doesn't support new web technologies. Guess we're stuck with apps after all.
• tempestn 8y ago
  This has always been our philosophy with AutoTempest.com. We do pretty regularly get requests to build an app though, although none of the people asking for it have had an answer to the question, "What are you looking for from an app version that the website doesn't currently offer?" So, at least so far I've decided it makes more sense to focus resources on the website. I do occasionally wonder if I'm passing up on a separate avenue for growth though. I also just wonder why people ask for an app, when they don't have a sense of what they want from it. There's obviously a sense that an app version would be better somehow, but it would be nice to understand what sort of betterness people are anticipating. (As someone who will almost always choose to use a mobile website over installing another app, I really don't have an intuitive understanding of the desire for an app.)
  • dvaun 8y ago
    As an aside — I would like to say that I really enjoy your website and the service! It has made shopping for a decent deal in my area a breeze. I'm curious about what kind of statistics you gather? It would be neat to track price movements across regions, and to see how the market trends for specific body styles and other characteristics during different time periods.
    • tempestn 8y ago
      Thanks, glad it's helpful! So far we only keep statistics on searches, not on listings. We do plan to start that eventually, but so far there have always been more important things to work on. (Important in terms of having more of an impact on the core search experience.)
  • mkl 8y ago
    Could it be as simple as an icon on the home screen and separate entry in app switcher?
    • tempestn 8y ago
      We do have one of those notifications that shows people how to add the site to their home screen, so hopefully that catches most of that use case.
• l0b0 8y ago
  My simple take on this is "holy shit yes!" Apps are the new desktop client, as far as I'm concerned, with their "innovative" UIs, inscrutable error modes, inevitable lack of support for still usable phones, and stupidly invasive permission requests. No web site ever needed access to my contacts, and every time an app asks for it I look for a "fuck off and ban-kill this app" button.
• alistproducer2 8y ago
  Lots of regular users have issues with limited space with which to download new apps. Of installing a new app means having to get rid of one I use, then your all just doesn't get installed. Stop building apps that could work as websites. It's not 2012 anymore.
• muzani 8y ago
  Android actually covers many of the "pros" listed here. It's cheap and fast to deploy. It's also easier to SEO an Android app than a website, from my experience. Mobile searches will turn up your app. Customer acquisition cost can also be very low. I'll add one other reason to use apps - it's best suited for things that happen as a kind of habit. For example a meditation app or a to do list is going to be more successful as an app than site.
• wolco 8y ago
  Using a separate phone for apps and using another phone for calls/texts can help privacy if you still love to install games/apps
  • ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Or just use iOS, because unless you’ve heard about an exploit that I haven’t, it’s impossible for any app to read (or write) your texts or calls. Or anything at all outside its sandbox unless you explicitly give it permission. This includes location, photos, contacts, microphone, etc. In fact, were I a malicious developer instead of the benevolent one that I am, I don’t think I’d touch iOS unless I could find a security hole or I was going to trick users into giving me permissions, because I don’t think there’s much attack surface otherwise. Open to correction though!
• fagnerbrack 8y ago
  "Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App" It sounds pretty obvious to me, low barrier to have something working = early feedback. Given the number of upvotes, I'm impressed why this is such a taboo. I always create a website first.
• fagnerbrack 8y ago
  And you have to add: Don't build a heavy front-end application. Build a small server first and return HTML. Once you prove your product then use something like Jasonette to serialize your model into an app language if you want to, or stay with a website, why not?
• erikb 8y ago
  start with a shellscript, then a REST API (+REST aware CLI), then a website, then a mobile app.
• qwerty456127 8y ago
  I feel like all we need is "one Ring to rule them all" - one app to run on all the mobile and desktop OSes and in web browsers and I can see no reason why do we need different kinds of apps for these (there hardly even is such a thing as a web site today actually - all the websites, this included, are apps, just styled and implemented differently and optimized for bigger screens). Perhaps Flutter (or something else to come) is going to let us achieve this.
• howlkid 8y ago
  Always start with a website and only build an app when the limitations of a website hinder growth and/or experience. If you only want an app to be listed in the App Store, send push notifications or get a tile on users' home screens then use something like https://appwraps.co/ https://appwraps.co/
• obventio56 8y ago
  Antidotal (likely an outlier) but I’ve slowly deleted social apps (Facebook, Twitter, insta) in favor of using their mobile sites. My reasoning is three fold: mobile sites are pretty good, it’s harder for companies to mine my data in a browser, and honestly storage on my 16gig iPhone is far too valuable for a 300mb app!! I’m 18 (aka young and woke) btw. Side point: I still need Snap’s app but I’ve considered quitting altogether bc it’s barely usable on my 6S. If battery is < 10% my phone will die if I open SC
  • t0astbread 8y ago
    > it’s harder for companies to mine my data in a browser I agree with this but I'm curious: What protection measures do you take to prevent companies from mining your data in browsers?
• hmart 8y ago
  Another pitfall on the Apple Store at least is that you as developer or agency creating apps for customers have to create an account for each entitiy (customer, company). Another $99, another excruciating approval process.
• t0astbread 8y ago
  I'm gonna play devils advocate here and say web apps aren't as pleasant to use on mobile phones as mobile apps and that's why mobile apps are still a thing. I'm especially looking at things like touch gestures and native integrations (launcher icons, notifications, "share with" providers, maybe even a home screen widget). I know PWAs are a thing but afaik they don't solve all of the above problems or don't solve them well (for example there are still inconsistencies as to what is a PWA and how PWAs are handled across Firefox and Chrome).
  • osrec 8y ago
    Try https://usebx.com/app https://usebx.com/app - we built it 2 years ago. It's a PWA, and our users find it better than many native alternatives. I think it's all in the execution really.
    • t0astbread 8y ago
      That's a cool app but it still launches inside a browser window on 3/4 tested browsers (Firefox on Android/Linux, Chromium on Linux; does launch as a standalone app on Android Chromium). Also (but this is more of a niche problem with more technical users) I wouldn't have noticed it's a PWA if you hadn't told me since I block service workers by default. I would, however, have noticed a banner taking me to an app store of your choice. Still, the app itself is cool though. Maybe you can use touch gestures on the web after all ;)
    • theonething 8y ago
      Beautiful app. Do you have a blog post about the development details like tech stack, etc?
      • osrec 8y ago
        Thank you :) Not currently, but it's not a bad idea to write something. As soon as I get a spare few hours, I will put something together. Feel free to drop me an email (see profile) and I'll notify you when it's done.
    • 8y ago
• jbchoo 8y ago
  Go PWA
• zwilliamson 8y ago
  "Namecheap domain is less than $10/month" I believe the author meant $10/year.
• m3kw9 8y ago
  Can’t do in app purchases with websites. App Store does a lot to help your app a chance to get discovered without SEO. Google will likely list thousands in front of you where as App Store will get you up there unless you are in a most popular category. Of course, lots of ideas don’t fit apps such as company websites or bios
  • statictype 8y ago
    This has not been my impression at all. With Google you have a chance to do SEO and improve your ranking and discoverability. With the App Store your only chance of discovery is their crappy search box where you compete with 100s of spam apps that somehow made it through the “rigorous” app store approval process.
• sharkjacobs 8y ago
  Of course I'm not interested in downloading a friggin app for Dominos pizza And I also don't believe I'll ever find a webapp that can favorably compare with my notes/calendar/email/other utility app of choice.
• me551ah 8y ago
  Lets say that there are 2 products, both of them offering similar functionality which is useful to a user. One of them only offers a progressive webapp and the other a native app. I can't think of a single example of where a product offering the former has won over the latter. Does anyone know of any products which have succeeded despite not having a mobile app ( while their competitors did)?
• yandrypozo 8y ago
  Thank you! Finally someone says that here on HN \o/
• dreamcompiler 8y ago
  Every single app I install immediately starts showing me upsell notifications. So the first thing I always have to do after installing an app is go to the Android app manager and disable its notifications. Websites don't have this issue. This is just one of many reasons why I'd rather go to your website than install your app.
• abhiminator 8y ago
  Reminds me of the time when WIRED magazine back in 2010 declared the web 'dead.' [0] Kind of amusing to note how wrong they were. [0] https://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff-webrip/ https://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff-webrip/
  • nickm12 8y ago
    This reminds me of the time back in 1997 when WIRED offered suggestions to save a dying Apple [0]. First suggestion? "Admit it. You're out of the hardware game." [0] https://www.wired.com/1997/06/apple-3/ https://www.wired.com/1997/06/apple-3/
• sampagu 8y ago
  https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/11/how-to-activate-uan.html https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/11/how-to-activate-uan.ht...
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• ojr 8y ago
  start with an app because Apple is more restrictive than the web and ideally you are going to want both an app and a web app, you don't want to fall into a situation where your popular web app is not allowed as an iOS app.
• nikki93 8y ago
  What about if you're making a video game?
• feresr 8y ago
  The author seems confused about backend vs client app. "An API Kapwing depended on broke unexpectedly, and we shipped changes the same day to get our service back online. Since we could deploy immediately, the unexpected outage was only a small hiccup. If Kapwing was an app, it would have taken a week for the new version to get approved, go live, and rollout to users through app updates—that would have been a huge loss."
• finfun234 8y ago
  i agree, its way easier to purchase a domain and launch a site!
• mehulkar 8y ago
  I'd like to venture another guess even further that this is possibly the furthest venture anyone can guess.
  • just_one_time_ 8y ago
    I'd venture you are wrong sir, just a guess.
  • grogenaut 8y ago
    I'd venture you'd be wrong. I'd not venture to guess how deep one could venture.
    • muthdra 8y ago
      I agree and I would go as far as distancing myself further to guess that you just ventured one guess deeper.
      • shadowxs76 8y ago
        And you got downvoted.. I venture that you went one venture too far...
      • doingmyting 8y ago
        reddit slowly infecting HN
  • dang 8y ago
    Please don't do this here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18828531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18828531 and marked it off-topic.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• pyramation 8y ago
  another reason to build for the web: https://android.jlelse.eu/google-just-terminated-our-start-up-google-play-publisher-account-on-christmas-day-5cb69a454da0 https://android.jlelse.eu/google-just-terminated-our-start-u...
• Aissen 8y ago
  "Browsers automatically translate text". I was not aware of non-Chrome major browsers having this feature, what have I missed ? Are they in fact targeting Chrome first ?
• ptx 8y ago
  There are some very strange arguments in this article. One claimed advantage of a web app is: "An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely a year has 12 months, making it actually more expensive? I guess it's an advantage if you expect your business to fail within 10 months? Also: "Browsers automatically translate text, so web developers don’t need to do much extra work to reach foreign users." ... What? Presumably the author speaks no languages other than English. Developers of native applications could easily run their UI strings through machine translation if they wanted to - but nobody wants that because the results are at best unprofessional and usually nonsensical gibberish.
  • danboarder 8y ago
    Typo. Namecheap domains are less than $10/year.
  • nnd 8y ago
    Surely it meant to say, $10/year for domain registration? Either way, this is still nonsense. Besides App Store developer license can be reused for other apps and comes with other additional benefits.
• ykevinator 8y ago
  It's a great point about web first. As a side note, there's really no point to a college degree anymore for most people. You don't need a Stanford degree to make a leisure product.
• simonhamp 8y ago
  Would it be too much to take this one step further and just say, you don’t even need a website? https://link.medium.com/LgwqnAIxgT https://link.medium.com/LgwqnAIxgT Your business idea doesn’t have to be rooted in anything technological. You can still start something offline, even in 2019!
• carusooneliner 8y ago
  Macro stats about install/uninstall rates of mobile apps are meaningless distractions when you're building a startup. Focus on what your audience needs and build that, whether it's a mobile app or a website. I built a funny videos android app and website, android users discovered the app more easily and were more engaged with the app because they wanted to share videos from my app to whatsapp. My more recent app is a web app because my audience are people doing work on their computer. Audience guides the approach.
• northernjames 8y ago
  When 5G is pervasive and cheap, "instant apps" will undoubtedly become a thing, which will reinvigorate apps. The App/Play stores cause too much friction now. That will change.