3 ms·

I understand why people don't like this change (limiting options, etc), but I can see slack's POV from a business perspective. The mobile web usage might be so

I understand why people don't like this change (limiting options, etc), but I can see slack's POV from a business perspective. The mobile web usage might be so low that maintaining it costs more than forcing people to switch to the app. And mobile web might be a bad experience anyway (because slack is focused on standalone desktop app, mobile app, desktop browser instead), so it turns new users off with the crappy experience. But I don't have the numbers or any other insight, so it could be more simple: "we want more app usage". And even if you decide to just leave it alone, is anything truly maintenance free? (possibly) This won't be the last thing to turn off mobile web to force-guide users to the app. And luckily for actual mobile web users, there seem to be alternatives.

jasonjayr 7y ago
The OP had a browser on the mobile device capable of rendering a "Desktop experience" and requested it. Slack went out of their way do discover that and block that user intent, rather than serve the Desktop UI that they test already in a desktop browser. The user knows they will be getting a desktop UI crammed into a mobile device, they asked for it.
- cddotdotslash 7y ago
  And the OP is probably the exact profile of person who will request the desktop page and then open support tickets with Slack when some features break, causing them to spend hours debugging the issue. The unfortunate reality is that it costs businesses money to support platforms. Blocking unsupported platforms probably results in an extremely small number of irritated users in exchange for saving thousands in support costs.
  - jasonjayr 7y ago
    At which point the support folks can close the ticket and say "We don't support that platform, please use the mobile app, or ask your browser developer to better support Desktop-on-Mobile". Not supporting the platform, and actively preventing it are two different things. Especially with all the invasive power mobile apps have on your device vs being contained in a browser. Too many apps stick their fingers into parts of the device that they don't belong. The well has been poisoned with so many apps abusing their privlege, so privacy conscious folks have to assume the worst when being pushed in that direction especially when the browser app worked without an issue (According to OP).
  - Marazan 7y ago
    No, I just want to read messages on my phone without installing the app.
ddebernardy 7y ago
That's besides the point. Why block users from using it if they want to so? If it works without any extra maintenance, great. Which, apparently, it did. Unless Slack has material amounts of support due to mobile users trying to use its web app, which I'm very skeptical about given that the app is a dumb wrapper around a web view anyway, there's no sensible reason to actively prevent those users from using it. What likely happened instead is that someone at Slack is trying to growth hack app download numbers.

jasonjayr 7y ago

The OP had a browser on the mobile device capable of rendering a "Desktop experience" and requested it. Slack went out of their way do discover that and block that user intent, rather than serve the Desktop UI that they test already in a desktop browser. The user knows they will be getting a desktop UI crammed into a mobile device, they asked for it.

cddotdotslash 7y ago
And the OP is probably the exact profile of person who will request the desktop page and then open support tickets with Slack when some features break, causing them to spend hours debugging the issue. The unfortunate reality is that it costs businesses money to support platforms. Blocking unsupported platforms probably results in an extremely small number of irritated users in exchange for saving thousands in support costs.
- jasonjayr 7y ago
  At which point the support folks can close the ticket and say "We don't support that platform, please use the mobile app, or ask your browser developer to better support Desktop-on-Mobile". Not supporting the platform, and actively preventing it are two different things. Especially with all the invasive power mobile apps have on your device vs being contained in a browser. Too many apps stick their fingers into parts of the device that they don't belong. The well has been poisoned with so many apps abusing their privlege, so privacy conscious folks have to assume the worst when being pushed in that direction especially when the browser app worked without an issue (According to OP).
- Marazan 7y ago
  No, I just want to read messages on my phone without installing the app.

ddebernardy 7y ago

That's besides the point. Why block users from using it if they want to so? If it works without any extra maintenance, great. Which, apparently, it did. Unless Slack has material amounts of support due to mobile users trying to use its web app, which I'm very skeptical about given that the app is a dumb wrapper around a web view anyway, there's no sensible reason to actively prevent those users from using it. What likely happened instead is that someone at Slack is trying to growth hack app download numbers.