5 ms·

I think that the mobile trend was blown way out of proportion. I very often find myself clicking on the 'Browse desktop version' button when browsing a so-calle

I think that the mobile trend was blown way out of proportion. I very often find myself clicking on the 'Browse desktop version' button when browsing a so-called 'mobile-friendly' version of a site. Is the look of the website really more important than the content and functionality? For me, it's not. This is just another example of a big tech monopoly imposing their highly opinionated ideas on billions of people. Also, I hate it when a mobile site keeps reminding me to install the app. This is extremely mobile-unfriendly. Google ought to punish those sites.

2_listerine_pls 7y ago
Not a trend, they rank AMP sites higher
sho 7y ago
> I think that the mobile trend was blown way out of proportion This is an extraordinarily location-specific sentiment. In the country I'm in right now, less than 25% of the population have desktop PCs. Everyone has a smartphone, if not two. Most of the world is like this, especially the developing countries with the most future growth potential.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I think the parent's point is that desktop sites are often good enough even on mobile. Mobile sites, on the other hand, seem to often lack in functionality.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    But most purely desktop sites, are in fact, not anywhere close to good on mobile. A good test is: do you need to zoom in and then pan horizontally to be able to read the content?
    - cryptica 7y ago
      Personally, I don't even mind panning around across both axes and zooming in but I may be a minority in that respect. Probably a large minority nonetheless. On Android/Chrome, the experience is not bad. When you load the desktop site, it looks very small but you see the whole thing. Then you can zoom in and pan using your fingers... Not so different from how you use Google maps. It's just a tiny bit slower than on desktop; but everything on mobile is slower than on desktop anyway including typing. If you're already loosely familiar with the site's UI, it's not difficult to use. Even if you have big finger, you can just zoom in first and then click. It's a quick two-step gesture which is easy to master.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        You are an outlier. Most people will not pan around to read an article - they'll just switch to an app instead of the web.
        Crinus 7y ago
        As another "outlier" who doesn't mind panning around to read an article (though i do prefer if i don't have to), do you have a source about the behavior of those fabled "most people"?
        ethbro 7y ago
        Are you sure? Content monitizers are heavily incentivized to switch users from web to app. So is this user-orginated or owner-pressured?
        majewsky 7y ago
        Even if it is owner-pressured, over time people grow accustomed to the linear presentation that's dominant in apps. People like when new stuff works like stuff they already know.
      - SirHound 7y ago
        > Personally, I There's your problem
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Reddit is the main site I use on my phone and I certainly use it in desktop mode all the time. I even use Google in desktop mode very often, because desktop mode lets me select arbitrary dates in results, whereas the mobile page gives me a limited selection.
cocochanel 7y ago
Yet another HN user talking about their use case. 99% of people are not your typical HN user.
- dkersten 7y ago
  So, 99% of people care more about aesthetics than about than content? Got anything to back that up?
  - Kiro 7y ago
    It's also about UX, accessibility, readability etc which often become a mess if you browse the desktop version on mobile. I also resort to the desktop version sometimes but it's very seldom the mobile version is actually missing content. Besides, I think most people have no idea that "Browse desktop version" even exists.
    - Mindwipe 7y ago
      > I also resort to the desktop version sometimes but it's very seldom the mobile version is actually missing content. Lol. I don't remember the last time I came across an AMP page that wasn't missing content.
      - Kiro 7y ago
        Do you have any examples? I think it's a separate topic though (AMP compared to mobile sites in general).
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    Basically (since most people won't use the features of the desktop version and would be severely slowed down by it on mobile): Yes.
  - esrauch 7y ago
    I'm surely still not in the 99% but honestly there's hardly any content that individually actually matters to me, it's almost all info-tainment. If it's hard to read then I won't bother at all. There's exceptions like restaurant menus at specific places that I'm considering, but certainly there's no mainstream news article that's worth me staining my eyes over: if it loads a desktop site on my mobile phone I'll definitely just hit back and move on regardless of the content.
jhcl 7y ago
They need you to install their app so they have better control over your device without those pesky browsers with their plugins blocking adds or privacy infringements.
manigandham 7y ago
Ironically, when Apple first launched the iPhone, full-size desktop viewing of websites was a major feature. It's strange that the world has reverted back into making an entirely separate mobile internet.
skocznymroczny 7y ago
The worst is the "mobile-first" approach which makes the desktop version suffers. Reddit's new redesign looks terrible on a 21:9 screen. Most content is centered on 1/3 on the screen. So much wasted horizontal space.
- vmednis 7y ago
  I'd say the redesign actually makes Reddit usable on a 21:9 screen not the other way around. I mostly browse text based subreddits so entire paragraphs becoming one long line which to read you have to move your head is more annoying. The redesign makes the site usable on more than a 5:4 or 4:3 monitor for which the original version was designed for.
buboard 7y ago
I dont even think people complained about mobile articles being slow. Sure , there are many bad cases where sites autoplay videos etc. but it’s equally bad in their desktop version (where s the amp there?). A few seconds to load an article on mobile is normal, considering that reading the article will take entire minutes. The probability of needing 1-2 seconds per page applies only when someone is skimming through multiple pages for research. The possibility of doing that on mobile is small, and these are users you dont want visiting your site anyway. Imho google built a honeytrap and is going to get away with murder because, when they will be fined for this, it will be already too late. I hope developers wake up to this reality. Since that is not going to happen, i hope they abuse amp as bad as they abused html , rendering it useless

2_listerine_pls 7y ago

Not a trend, they rank AMP sites higher

sho 7y ago

> I think that the mobile trend was blown way out of proportion This is an extraordinarily location-specific sentiment. In the country I'm in right now, less than 25% of the population have desktop PCs. Everyone has a smartphone, if not two. Most of the world is like this, especially the developing countries with the most future growth potential.

Mirioron 7y ago
I think the parent's point is that desktop sites are often good enough even on mobile. Mobile sites, on the other hand, seem to often lack in functionality.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  But most purely desktop sites, are in fact, not anywhere close to good on mobile. A good test is: do you need to zoom in and then pan horizontally to be able to read the content?
  - cryptica 7y ago
    Personally, I don't even mind panning around across both axes and zooming in but I may be a minority in that respect. Probably a large minority nonetheless. On Android/Chrome, the experience is not bad. When you load the desktop site, it looks very small but you see the whole thing. Then you can zoom in and pan using your fingers... Not so different from how you use Google maps. It's just a tiny bit slower than on desktop; but everything on mobile is slower than on desktop anyway including typing. If you're already loosely familiar with the site's UI, it's not difficult to use. Even if you have big finger, you can just zoom in first and then click. It's a quick two-step gesture which is easy to master.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      You are an outlier. Most people will not pan around to read an article - they'll just switch to an app instead of the web.
      - Crinus 7y ago
        As another "outlier" who doesn't mind panning around to read an article (though i do prefer if i don't have to), do you have a source about the behavior of those fabled "most people"?
      - ethbro 7y ago
        Are you sure? Content monitizers are heavily incentivized to switch users from web to app. So is this user-orginated or owner-pressured?
        majewsky 7y ago
        Even if it is owner-pressured, over time people grow accustomed to the linear presentation that's dominant in apps. People like when new stuff works like stuff they already know.
    - SirHound 7y ago
      > Personally, I There's your problem
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Reddit is the main site I use on my phone and I certainly use it in desktop mode all the time. I even use Google in desktop mode very often, because desktop mode lets me select arbitrary dates in results, whereas the mobile page gives me a limited selection.

cocochanel 7y ago

Yet another HN user talking about their use case. 99% of people are not your typical HN user.

dkersten 7y ago
So, 99% of people care more about aesthetics than about than content? Got anything to back that up?
- Kiro 7y ago
  It's also about UX, accessibility, readability etc which often become a mess if you browse the desktop version on mobile. I also resort to the desktop version sometimes but it's very seldom the mobile version is actually missing content. Besides, I think most people have no idea that "Browse desktop version" even exists.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    > I also resort to the desktop version sometimes but it's very seldom the mobile version is actually missing content. Lol. I don't remember the last time I came across an AMP page that wasn't missing content.
    - Kiro 7y ago
      Do you have any examples? I think it's a separate topic though (AMP compared to mobile sites in general).
- solarkraft 7y ago
  Basically (since most people won't use the features of the desktop version and would be severely slowed down by it on mobile): Yes.
- esrauch 7y ago
  I'm surely still not in the 99% but honestly there's hardly any content that individually actually matters to me, it's almost all info-tainment. If it's hard to read then I won't bother at all. There's exceptions like restaurant menus at specific places that I'm considering, but certainly there's no mainstream news article that's worth me staining my eyes over: if it loads a desktop site on my mobile phone I'll definitely just hit back and move on regardless of the content.

jhcl 7y ago

They need you to install their app so they have better control over your device without those pesky browsers with their plugins blocking adds or privacy infringements.

manigandham 7y ago

Ironically, when Apple first launched the iPhone, full-size desktop viewing of websites was a major feature. It's strange that the world has reverted back into making an entirely separate mobile internet.

skocznymroczny 7y ago

The worst is the "mobile-first" approach which makes the desktop version suffers. Reddit's new redesign looks terrible on a 21:9 screen. Most content is centered on 1/3 on the screen. So much wasted horizontal space.

vmednis 7y ago
I'd say the redesign actually makes Reddit usable on a 21:9 screen not the other way around. I mostly browse text based subreddits so entire paragraphs becoming one long line which to read you have to move your head is more annoying. The redesign makes the site usable on more than a 5:4 or 4:3 monitor for which the original version was designed for.

buboard 7y ago

I dont even think people complained about mobile articles being slow. Sure , there are many bad cases where sites autoplay videos etc. but it’s equally bad in their desktop version (where s the amp there?). A few seconds to load an article on mobile is normal, considering that reading the article will take entire minutes. The probability of needing 1-2 seconds per page applies only when someone is skimming through multiple pages for research. The possibility of doing that on mobile is small, and these are users you dont want visiting your site anyway. Imho google built a honeytrap and is going to get away with murder because, when they will be fined for this, it will be already too late. I hope developers wake up to this reality. Since that is not going to happen, i hope they abuse amp as bad as they abused html , rendering it useless