6 ms·

Am I a fan of Electron? Like most people here - I've never built on it. But I am thankful that it has ushered in a ton of useful apps that do indeed work across

by locusm 6y ago

Am I a fan of Electron? Like most people here - I've never built on it. But I am thankful that it has ushered in a ton of useful apps that do indeed work across 3 different operating systems.

gruez 6y ago
That argument really only makes sense for small companies who can't otherwise afford to develop for multiple platforms. For huge companies like slack or spotify, using electron is a cost-saving measure for them that creates an externality for end users, in the form of greater resource usage.
- cageface 6y ago
  The only native music streaming app I've tried is Apple Music, which is worse than Spotify, Idagio and Tidal in many ways. It's certainly slower and less responsive. This might be for legacy reasons but if even Apple with limitless resources can't be bothered to build a new native client on their own stack why should we expect companies a small fraction of their size to do it?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Apple Music on desktop is a poor web view wrapper with mildly-offensive "native" UI.
    - cageface 6y ago
      I didn't realize the new one was a web wrapper. I guess the point still stands though that even Apple can't be bothered to build a truly native app on their own platform.
      - harrygeez 6y ago
        One trend I noticed is many large software these days: Office, Adobe Suite, Spotify, Steam, Apple Store/iTunes/etc are all using web technology to build at least, their frontends. One can't help but think, maybe web stack makes it the easiest to build good looking apps that are responsive
        cageface 6y ago
        Another factor is that you very likely need some kind of web UI so there's a huge benefit in using web technologies across the board. Once again Apple music is a good example. They had to build a browser-based UI to keep up with the competition and once you've done that there is a strong incentive to reuse it.
        majewsky 6y ago
        Counter-hypotheses: The web stack is the easiest to hire for. The web stack is the easiest to deploy to. The web stack has the most inertia, so its substantial and glaring flaws actually get addressed, whereas other GUI stacks change at a much slower pace (for better or worse).
- woutr_be 6y ago
  And yet Slack and Spotify are some of the most used apps. I wonder if most end users just don’t care about resource usage, as long as they can comfortably run all their apps, why should they?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Slack and Spotify tend to have a fair amount of lock-in.
    - woutr_be 6y ago
      Perhaps, but making the assumption end users care about resource consumption seems a bit silly. Most of these apps run perfectly fine, sure they use a bit more resources than their native counterpart. But even for a technical person like myself, I barely notice it. So I’m not sure this arguments outweighs the cost of having to maintain different native apps.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I am actually quite annoyed by this specific points, because I am sure users would certainly mind if someone told them that Slack and Spotify were taking two hours off of their battery life, and they'd certainly want something better than that if possible. The developers of Electron apps are largely shielded from outrage by user ignorance, and users blame their computer or themselves instead.
        woutr_be 6y ago
        Would they really? Or would it be the same outrage as when people realised Google is selling their data, or when Facebook is monitoring every move they make? What I'm getting to is; if people wanted something better, something better would've come along already. Most developers are shielded by user ignorance, if users knew what happens behind the scenes at most banks, they wouldn't want to bank with them anymore. Same goes for almost every software system.
      - 6y ago
- rumanator 6y ago
  > That argument really only makes sense for small companies who can't otherwise afford to develop for multiple platforms. In your opinion what do all the other companies have to gain with the added cost required to reach the same outcome?
- slightwinder 6y ago
  For the user a unified implementation means that you receive across all platforms the same features in the same quality at the same time. Which means a big win for linux and macos. Without electron it usually means there is no app at all, or just some cripled half-assed version which is constantly different and bug-ridden. Even for big companies it's hard to organize multiple projects to be on the same level, especially if we are talking about some more arcane platforms where you have a hard time to find people with enough experience.
- lucsky 6y ago
  For the ten millionth time: the desktop Spotify client is NOT an Electron app, it's a CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework) app, which is kind of the same, but in the end not the same. Get your facts straight please.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    It looks like true, why downvoted?

by locusm 6y ago

Am I a fan of Electron? Like most people here - I've never built on it. But I am thankful that it has ushered in a ton of useful apps that do indeed work across 3 different operating systems.

gruez 6y ago

That argument really only makes sense for small companies who can't otherwise afford to develop for multiple platforms. For huge companies like slack or spotify, using electron is a cost-saving measure for them that creates an externality for end users, in the form of greater resource usage.

cageface 6y ago
The only native music streaming app I've tried is Apple Music, which is worse than Spotify, Idagio and Tidal in many ways. It's certainly slower and less responsive. This might be for legacy reasons but if even Apple with limitless resources can't be bothered to build a new native client on their own stack why should we expect companies a small fraction of their size to do it?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Apple Music on desktop is a poor web view wrapper with mildly-offensive "native" UI.
  - cageface 6y ago
    I didn't realize the new one was a web wrapper. I guess the point still stands though that even Apple can't be bothered to build a truly native app on their own platform.
    - harrygeez 6y ago
      One trend I noticed is many large software these days: Office, Adobe Suite, Spotify, Steam, Apple Store/iTunes/etc are all using web technology to build at least, their frontends. One can't help but think, maybe web stack makes it the easiest to build good looking apps that are responsive
      - cageface 6y ago
        Another factor is that you very likely need some kind of web UI so there's a huge benefit in using web technologies across the board. Once again Apple music is a good example. They had to build a browser-based UI to keep up with the competition and once you've done that there is a strong incentive to reuse it.
      - majewsky 6y ago
        Counter-hypotheses: The web stack is the easiest to hire for. The web stack is the easiest to deploy to. The web stack has the most inertia, so its substantial and glaring flaws actually get addressed, whereas other GUI stacks change at a much slower pace (for better or worse).
woutr_be 6y ago
And yet Slack and Spotify are some of the most used apps. I wonder if most end users just don’t care about resource usage, as long as they can comfortably run all their apps, why should they?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Slack and Spotify tend to have a fair amount of lock-in.
  - woutr_be 6y ago
    Perhaps, but making the assumption end users care about resource consumption seems a bit silly. Most of these apps run perfectly fine, sure they use a bit more resources than their native counterpart. But even for a technical person like myself, I barely notice it. So I’m not sure this arguments outweighs the cost of having to maintain different native apps.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I am actually quite annoyed by this specific points, because I am sure users would certainly mind if someone told them that Slack and Spotify were taking two hours off of their battery life, and they'd certainly want something better than that if possible. The developers of Electron apps are largely shielded from outrage by user ignorance, and users blame their computer or themselves instead.
      - woutr_be 6y ago
        Would they really? Or would it be the same outrage as when people realised Google is selling their data, or when Facebook is monitoring every move they make? What I'm getting to is; if people wanted something better, something better would've come along already. Most developers are shielded by user ignorance, if users knew what happens behind the scenes at most banks, they wouldn't want to bank with them anymore. Same goes for almost every software system.
    - 6y ago
rumanator 6y ago
> That argument really only makes sense for small companies who can't otherwise afford to develop for multiple platforms. In your opinion what do all the other companies have to gain with the added cost required to reach the same outcome?
slightwinder 6y ago
For the user a unified implementation means that you receive across all platforms the same features in the same quality at the same time. Which means a big win for linux and macos. Without electron it usually means there is no app at all, or just some cripled half-assed version which is constantly different and bug-ridden. Even for big companies it's hard to organize multiple projects to be on the same level, especially if we are talking about some more arcane platforms where you have a hard time to find people with enough experience.
lucsky 6y ago
For the ten millionth time: the desktop Spotify client is NOT an Electron app, it's a CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework) app, which is kind of the same, but in the end not the same. Get your facts straight please.
- fomine3 6y ago
  It looks like true, why downvoted?