5 ms·

Your argument was that you'd always want to develop universal apps in order to cater to everyone, not niches. Now you're talking about catering to low end garba

by lagadu 7y ago

Your argument was that you'd always want to develop universal apps in order to cater to everyone, not niches. Now you're talking about catering to low end garbage phones specifically. I don't doubt that catering to as large as possible an audience works for the low end of the market spectrum but I was arguing against the concept of ignoring niches, particularly high-end ones. I want fast and feature X and I've no problem with $20 if it's better than the free one. We were talking about different markets :)

em-bee 7y ago
huh, i think we are missing each other somewhere. i am talking about not catering to low end phones. i thought you were talking about better performing apps for low end phones. this whole article is about low end phones. why else would you need high performing apps? (i mean i can imagine why you would, but that is an entirely different topics, so please forgive me that i would miss that.)
- em-bee 7y ago
  in summary my argument is that: - writing native apps to gain a bit of performance for a minority of users is not worth the added cost of development - performance is not a selection criteria for most users - low end phone users are unlikely to spend money on expensive apps - catering to low end phones only makes sense for apps that are useful to that market. those apps have to be cheap, and that's yet another reason not to make them native. and i was responding to a comment how it doesn't make sense to use web technology on low end phones. my counter argument: it does not (no longer) make sense to write native apps. period. you then responded that you would pay for better performing apps, but that puts you into a different niche demographic than the entire topic of the article. now one point of the article is that the demographics will change and that there is going to be a huge market of users with low-end phones. however that still doesn't make performance a selection criteria for people buying apps unless the phones are not able to run any of the popular apps which appears to be the case because kaiOS didn't even support native apps last i checked. in other words, apps on those phones are competing in an entirely different league, and the existing android market does not apply. then again we have an entirely different dynamic of competing in a new market where there are no existing contenders, and the main question is, is the market big enough yet to make it worth it. and since those phones run kaiOS native apps are off the table anyways

by lagadu 7y ago

em-bee 7y ago

huh, i think we are missing each other somewhere. i am talking about not catering to low end phones. i thought you were talking about better performing apps for low end phones. this whole article is about low end phones. why else would you need high performing apps? (i mean i can imagine why you would, but that is an entirely different topics, so please forgive me that i would miss that.)

em-bee 7y ago
in summary my argument is that: - writing native apps to gain a bit of performance for a minority of users is not worth the added cost of development - performance is not a selection criteria for most users - low end phone users are unlikely to spend money on expensive apps - catering to low end phones only makes sense for apps that are useful to that market. those apps have to be cheap, and that's yet another reason not to make them native. and i was responding to a comment how it doesn't make sense to use web technology on low end phones. my counter argument: it does not (no longer) make sense to write native apps. period. you then responded that you would pay for better performing apps, but that puts you into a different niche demographic than the entire topic of the article. now one point of the article is that the demographics will change and that there is going to be a huge market of users with low-end phones. however that still doesn't make performance a selection criteria for people buying apps unless the phones are not able to run any of the popular apps which appears to be the case because kaiOS didn't even support native apps last i checked. in other words, apps on those phones are competing in an entirely different league, and the existing android market does not apply. then again we have an entirely different dynamic of competing in a new market where there are no existing contenders, and the main question is, is the market big enough yet to make it worth it. and since those phones run kaiOS native apps are off the table anyways