6 ms·

> there is only one HTML page even though the app looks like it has dozens of screens!! Ugh. Really, you guys think this is the future? It's a total perversion

by algore 16y ago

> there is only one HTML page even though the app looks like it has dozens of screens!! Ugh. Really, you guys think this is the future? It's a total perversion of what a URL and a webpage are supposed to be. It's ugly hacks on top of more ugly hacks to produce a substandard experience. An app like this is not hard to produce with Xcode and Obj-C, and it will look feel and work 10x better. It will only get easier as development tools improve, and Xcode and Interface Builder have a ways to go to catch up with Visual Studio. There is a place for web apps and a place for real apps. For many years now countless companies have been investing in shoehorning an app into a webpage, and they don't have much to show for it except buggy javascript and unreliable software. Not even semi-professionals would consider using Google Docs over client-based Word for serious document composition. Or substituting Photoshop with one of the dozens of webapp photo editing tools. It's all cute, but in the end its not practical for real world use. It's unfortunate that so many talented programmers are sucked into this "webapp everything" mindset and devote themselves to crappy products, sometimes simply because they have a personal hangup with Microsoft or Apple. Obviously there are plenty of skilled coders who are making client-based software that's beautiful, useful, and profitable, but client software is still dominated by crap, even on super popular platforms like iOS and especially Android. There are enormous opportunities on the client that have been ignored for a decade. Think about this, today for less than $200 you can have a more powerful computer (more RAM, more storage, more MHz) in your pocket than you could buy for $1000 in 2000. And today's has a phone, a camera, broadband internet, GPS all built in. Not only that, but that same computer is making its way into your TV and car. And what is being done with all that power? Still hacking choppy javascript animations on a document markup language!

jasonlotito 16y ago
> Ugh. Really, you guys think this is the future? Yes. So do you, apparently. Here... > There is a place for web apps and a place for real apps. And shoehorning web apps into real apps is bad. While I don't suggest every app should be made into a web app, I also think a lot of "real" apps make no sense outside of being a web app. > Still hacking choppy javascript animations on a document markup language! And yet, these "fake" apps are the most popular apps in the world, preferred by geeks, professionals, and non-technical people alike. I don't see native apps going away, I just less natives apps merely doing something that can already be accomplished online, and usually better.
- algore 16y ago
  > And yet, these "fake" apps are the most popular apps in the world I would dispute that, in every case where there is exists a native app with equal functionality, the app is used every time. Customers prefer the native apps. Yes, we all know the dev costs are high right now, but that will change just like it did for web development. Also significant, there is finally again opportunities for developers to be paid for their work by real customers. The quality of native apps plus the AppStore model is resulting in end customers seeing value in software again. The only reason so many web apps are popular now is because it's the only choice available to consumers. Tech companies have been distracted the last 10 years chasing the perpetual myth of write-once run-everywhere, this time instead of Java or Flash or XML (for data), it is HTML5+javscript. I guess we haven't learned yet. There is a return to client coding happening, and it's going to produce a new renaissance in really great software.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > I would dispute that, in every case where there is exists a native app with equal functionality, the app is used every time. Not true at all. And, misses the point: so-called "fake" apps are the most popular over their "real" counter parts. Not in all areas, sure. But in many. It depends on the domain. To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based.
    - algore 16y ago
      > To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based. Massive value to whom? We all know the value to the developer. I'm not disputing the current cost savings of webapps, though it will quickly become irrelevant as native app dev/distribution costs plummet. But is there any value to the customer? There used to be a lot more. Sure was convenient to be able to log in to your email from any computer. That was until you started to read all your email on your phone that you carry with you all the time. The web interface isn't going to disappear, but it will become the secondary way to interact with apps. Right now it is still the primary for many apps like Facebook and Flickr. That is changing.
kennu 16y ago
There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes, and having a relatively slow upgrade path for new versions, without a guarantee that everybody will upgrade. I agree that there are cases for both approaches (native and web app), but it's also pretty amazing what you can do with HTML5/CSS3 if you know how to utilize e.g. iOS hardware acceleration properly. In fact the whole iOS web stack with offline support, local storage, startup images and icons etc. is getting so complete, you can't even notice whether you're using a native or a well crafted HTML app.
- algore 16y ago
  > you can't even notice whether you're using a native or a well crafted HTML app. That's completely untrue. It is immediately noticeable because of the lack of responsiveness, smoothness of transitions, and ugly layouts. Like I said, you can put together a bunch of hacks to try and imitate it, but you end up with something clunky and unprofessional. This wasn't as big a deal 10 years ago, but interface expectations on these devices (especially the tablets) are very high. Quality design is expected by a lot more customers in the hardware AND software. Interfacing with touch gestures needs to be instant and seamless. Did you even look at the "Ali Quotes" app in the story? It's terrible. I've poked around the jQueryMobile already on my iPhone, the whole thing is, in a word, slow. Yes, I know it's new. It will be better in six months... after thousands of coding hours will be spent concocting ludicrous javascript and CSS hacks to duplicate something that's been done perfectly well on native client platforms for 3 years. It's a terrible waste of effort. > There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes True, these are problems that have existed forever, and better dev tools help alleviate them. But don't forget these same problems are prevalent all over web apps too. Flash memory leaks are everywhere. Javascript suddenly consumes 100% of your CPU. Same problems, but no one care about fixing them because its just a webpage, just reload it. Well OK, but that's why even after 10 years people don't trust webapps.
- blub 16y ago
  There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes, --------------------- As opposed to hunting DOM leaks and having your script silently fail?
earnubs 16y ago
"For many years now countless companies have been investing in shoehorning an app into a webpage, and they don't have much to show for it except buggy javascript and unreliable software." Examples? "Not even semi-professionals would consider using Google Docs over client-based Word for serious document composition." I do, I'm a 'professional'.
- algore 16y ago
  > Examples? Big ones: the whole Google suite. Gmail is clearly the most reliable, but strange things still happen in gmail, like chat dropping, task lists locking up, or crashes. I love gmail, use it all the time, has great features. But I'd love a native client for Gmail even more. Flickr. Great content and community, but the web interface is clearly clunky. Imagine Flickr on a tablet. Swiping, pinching, tapping. If you had the choice, you'd use the app, not the webpage. Facebook. Insanely popular, insanely buggy. Try spending 30 minutes going through newsfeeds and photo albums without having the javascript go unresponsive. Just using those 3 examples, you will see great client front-ends created for those in the next few years. Though maybe not Google if they don't get their head out of the sand. Soon Facebook will do a great tablet client, and it will be a KILLER app. So what type of professional document creation are you doing in Google Docs?
  - jasongullickson 16y ago
    Yeah I've never had a native/desktop app exhibit any of these behaviors...oh wait...
  - mgcross 16y ago
    It seems to me that some of the issues you mention with web apps would also be apparent with native apps acting as a front-end to online apps. Network transfers and latency can result in pauses and delays that would impact user experience more than choppy transitions, and native apps can't change that. Is it worth the time and cost to create native front-ends for iOS, Android, BB, W7P? I don't doubt for a minute that the experience would be better for each platform as a native app, but would it be profitable for small/medium size business? I feel like SMBs are the target of web-based mobile frameworks, for the most part. I don't think we'll see Facebook in JQuery Mobile any time soon.
ramanujan 16y ago
The big issue for the IPhone at least is the app store approval process. That alone imposes enough risk that HTML/CSS/JS may be better. And it's easier to maintain than an Objective C port.
DjDarkman 16y ago
> It's a total perversion of what a URL and a webpage are supposed to be. No it's not, it's simple HTML with JavaScript attached. Most of it probably works even if you disable JS. > It's ugly hacks on top of more ugly hacks to produce a substandard experience. Some examples please! Otherwise I have to assume you have just made it up. > An app like this is not hard to produce with Xcode and Obj-C "not hard" for who? It doesn't even have garbage collection, it's basically C with OO capabilities. > There is a place for web apps and a place for real apps. You probably meant to say "native" apps, and you didn't even bother to back this up. > they don't have much to show Except for: Youtube, Facebook, Flickr and probably hundreds more. > buggy javascript and unreliable software How is the JavaScript buggy? are you assuming that no one can code properly in JavaScript? Are you saying that every software written in JavaScript is unreliable? All this without even giving a reason? > Or substituting Photoshop with one of the dozens of webapp photo editing tools. It's all cute, but in the end its not practical for real world use. You give one example, but ignore all counter examples. > It's all cute, but in the end its not practical for real world use. Then why are people using it? Why are developers developing for it? > It's unfortunate that so many talented programmers are sucked into this "webapp everything" mindset and devote themselves to crappy products, sometimes simply because they have a personal hangup with Microsoft or Apple. Are you assuming products are crappy just because they are webapps? Are you saying that people chose web just because they hate a company?

by algore 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

> Ugh. Really, you guys think this is the future? Yes. So do you, apparently. Here... > There is a place for web apps and a place for real apps. And shoehorning web apps into real apps is bad. While I don't suggest every app should be made into a web app, I also think a lot of "real" apps make no sense outside of being a web app. > Still hacking choppy javascript animations on a document markup language! And yet, these "fake" apps are the most popular apps in the world, preferred by geeks, professionals, and non-technical people alike. I don't see native apps going away, I just less natives apps merely doing something that can already be accomplished online, and usually better.

algore 16y ago
> And yet, these "fake" apps are the most popular apps in the world I would dispute that, in every case where there is exists a native app with equal functionality, the app is used every time. Customers prefer the native apps. Yes, we all know the dev costs are high right now, but that will change just like it did for web development. Also significant, there is finally again opportunities for developers to be paid for their work by real customers. The quality of native apps plus the AppStore model is resulting in end customers seeing value in software again. The only reason so many web apps are popular now is because it's the only choice available to consumers. Tech companies have been distracted the last 10 years chasing the perpetual myth of write-once run-everywhere, this time instead of Java or Flash or XML (for data), it is HTML5+javscript. I guess we haven't learned yet. There is a return to client coding happening, and it's going to produce a new renaissance in really great software.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > I would dispute that, in every case where there is exists a native app with equal functionality, the app is used every time. Not true at all. And, misses the point: so-called "fake" apps are the most popular over their "real" counter parts. Not in all areas, sure. But in many. It depends on the domain. To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based.
  - algore 16y ago
    > To assume that native is always better is dismissing the massive value provided by web-based. Massive value to whom? We all know the value to the developer. I'm not disputing the current cost savings of webapps, though it will quickly become irrelevant as native app dev/distribution costs plummet. But is there any value to the customer? There used to be a lot more. Sure was convenient to be able to log in to your email from any computer. That was until you started to read all your email on your phone that you carry with you all the time. The web interface isn't going to disappear, but it will become the secondary way to interact with apps. Right now it is still the primary for many apps like Facebook and Flickr. That is changing.

kennu 16y ago

There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes, and having a relatively slow upgrade path for new versions, without a guarantee that everybody will upgrade. I agree that there are cases for both approaches (native and web app), but it's also pretty amazing what you can do with HTML5/CSS3 if you know how to utilize e.g. iOS hardware acceleration properly. In fact the whole iOS web stack with offline support, local storage, startup images and icons etc. is getting so complete, you can't even notice whether you're using a native or a well crafted HTML app.

algore 16y ago
> you can't even notice whether you're using a native or a well crafted HTML app. That's completely untrue. It is immediately noticeable because of the lack of responsiveness, smoothness of transitions, and ugly layouts. Like I said, you can put together a bunch of hacks to try and imitate it, but you end up with something clunky and unprofessional. This wasn't as big a deal 10 years ago, but interface expectations on these devices (especially the tablets) are very high. Quality design is expected by a lot more customers in the hardware AND software. Interfacing with touch gestures needs to be instant and seamless. Did you even look at the "Ali Quotes" app in the story? It's terrible. I've poked around the jQueryMobile already on my iPhone, the whole thing is, in a word, slow. Yes, I know it's new. It will be better in six months... after thousands of coding hours will be spent concocting ludicrous javascript and CSS hacks to duplicate something that's been done perfectly well on native client platforms for 3 years. It's a terrible waste of effort. > There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes True, these are problems that have existed forever, and better dev tools help alleviate them. But don't forget these same problems are prevalent all over web apps too. Flash memory leaks are everywhere. Javascript suddenly consumes 100% of your CPU. Same problems, but no one care about fixing them because its just a webpage, just reload it. Well OK, but that's why even after 10 years people don't trust webapps.
blub 16y ago
There are also some heavy downsides in Xcode/Obj-C development, such as hunting down memory leaks and crashes, --------------------- As opposed to hunting DOM leaks and having your script silently fail?

earnubs 16y ago

"For many years now countless companies have been investing in shoehorning an app into a webpage, and they don't have much to show for it except buggy javascript and unreliable software." Examples? "Not even semi-professionals would consider using Google Docs over client-based Word for serious document composition." I do, I'm a 'professional'.

algore 16y ago
> Examples? Big ones: the whole Google suite. Gmail is clearly the most reliable, but strange things still happen in gmail, like chat dropping, task lists locking up, or crashes. I love gmail, use it all the time, has great features. But I'd love a native client for Gmail even more. Flickr. Great content and community, but the web interface is clearly clunky. Imagine Flickr on a tablet. Swiping, pinching, tapping. If you had the choice, you'd use the app, not the webpage. Facebook. Insanely popular, insanely buggy. Try spending 30 minutes going through newsfeeds and photo albums without having the javascript go unresponsive. Just using those 3 examples, you will see great client front-ends created for those in the next few years. Though maybe not Google if they don't get their head out of the sand. Soon Facebook will do a great tablet client, and it will be a KILLER app. So what type of professional document creation are you doing in Google Docs?
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  Yeah I've never had a native/desktop app exhibit any of these behaviors...oh wait...
- mgcross 16y ago
  It seems to me that some of the issues you mention with web apps would also be apparent with native apps acting as a front-end to online apps. Network transfers and latency can result in pauses and delays that would impact user experience more than choppy transitions, and native apps can't change that. Is it worth the time and cost to create native front-ends for iOS, Android, BB, W7P? I don't doubt for a minute that the experience would be better for each platform as a native app, but would it be profitable for small/medium size business? I feel like SMBs are the target of web-based mobile frameworks, for the most part. I don't think we'll see Facebook in JQuery Mobile any time soon.

ramanujan 16y ago

The big issue for the IPhone at least is the app store approval process. That alone imposes enough risk that HTML/CSS/JS may be better. And it's easier to maintain than an Objective C port.

DjDarkman 16y ago

> It's a total perversion of what a URL and a webpage are supposed to be. No it's not, it's simple HTML with JavaScript attached. Most of it probably works even if you disable JS. > It's ugly hacks on top of more ugly hacks to produce a substandard experience. Some examples please! Otherwise I have to assume you have just made it up. > An app like this is not hard to produce with Xcode and Obj-C "not hard" for who? It doesn't even have garbage collection, it's basically C with OO capabilities. > There is a place for web apps and a place for real apps. You probably meant to say "native" apps, and you didn't even bother to back this up. > they don't have much to show Except for: Youtube, Facebook, Flickr and probably hundreds more. > buggy javascript and unreliable software How is the JavaScript buggy? are you assuming that no one can code properly in JavaScript? Are you saying that every software written in JavaScript is unreliable? All this without even giving a reason? > Or substituting Photoshop with one of the dozens of webapp photo editing tools. It's all cute, but in the end its not practical for real world use. You give one example, but ignore all counter examples. > It's all cute, but in the end its not practical for real world use. Then why are people using it? Why are developers developing for it? > It's unfortunate that so many talented programmers are sucked into this "webapp everything" mindset and devote themselves to crappy products, sometimes simply because they have a personal hangup with Microsoft or Apple. Are you assuming products are crappy just because they are webapps? Are you saying that people chose web just because they hate a company?