6 ms·

I think your opinion is unpopular for a reason. You haven't given any reason why an app developer would want to rule out a subset of their potential audience.

I think your opinion is unpopular for a reason. You haven't given any reason why an app developer would want to rule out a subset of their potential audience. You seem to feel that users either a) have money to spend on redundant devices or b) fall neatly into groups. In my case, I do music apps. They are educational, fun, and inspire creativity. They run best on a computer (screen size, speed being the main reasons) but work on mobile. There is zero reason I can think of that I should pick Mac vs. Windows. If they are running on a phone or tablet, there is zero reason I should pick iOS or Android. So why should I have to pick just one? How is it better that, for technical reasons, I should be subdividing users like this? Your unpopular opinion doesn't really cover this.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I did give a reason, maybe it was too subtle: the majority of your market is on one or maybe two devices and focusing on a better experience on those devices will make your users' lives better as opposed to cobbling together some compromised jank interface in the name of capturing a few outliers.
- mthoms 5y ago
  A few outliers? The mobile market share is about 50:50 iOS vs. Android (at least in North America).
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    But mobile is an outlier use case for a whole lot of things you might make software for. What's the mobile market for CAD software? High-end photo editing or audio work? Programming?
    - mthoms 5y ago
      And desktop is an outlier use case for lots of things. What point are you making?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I don't disagree. I'm saying stop caring so much about achieving some 'universal' and just focus on the most important platform(s) for what your application does, and make your application fit those platforms as best it can.
        robbrown451 5y ago
        Your advice seems targeted at app developers, and for that, maybe it is good advice. (depends on the product, really. Way back in 1996 Hotmail proved that web based apps could compete with native apps, for email apps anyway) But this discussion is not about what app developers should do today, given the current state of browsers. It is about whether the browser makers should support enhanced capabilities. This is different. If the browser makers did support more, of course, your advice would become even less likely to be good advice, since you could make it "fit those platforms" just as well. I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. Now it is just a matter of supporting all the things they might expect in the app.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. I do, and I think this is obvious to anyone who has spent time using both. > Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. It's much deeper than that. Native applications using native widgets integrate much better with the way the OS works. You can notice this in the little things like how windows behave, how drag and drop works, notifications, task management, system tray usage, etc. > I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. I think that's a terrible metric. People have gotten used to having shitty local monopoly ISPs too, it doesn't mean that's the way we should be doing things.
        5y ago
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      Yeah and I actually develop CAD software. I worked on stuff in the 90s that ran on multiple platforms, then they gave up on that and went all windows, which sucked. Now (rejoining the same company 23 years later) the new initiative is all web based (and yes it does run on mobile, which makes plenty of sense for a lot of the market which isn't design per se but is typically used on site). The web version is damn impressive, btw. But again, it sucks having to decide between mac and windows, or having a whole ton of effort going into supporting both. (and linux is lowest priority)
- robbrown451 5y ago
  The only reason it should be a "jank interface" is because the browser makers haven't been doing all they can to make browsers capable, which is basically what you are arguing against. That's circular logic. I don't see browser apps being janky. Certainly not mine, and it is an intensely graphical app that also takes full advantage of the web audio api. (it also does several things that native apps can't do, such as it's ability to synchronize and layer graphics on top of youtube music videos) Some of them are indeed janky, but plenty of native apps are too. Do you do apps? I'd be happy to compare mine side by side to any native app. But the main point is, why would you want to invest all your development efforts into a proprietary API that locks you in and is under the control of a single company?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > The only reason it should be a "jank interface" is because the browser makers haven't been doing all they can to make browsers capable, which is basically what you are arguing against. That's circular logic. What I'm arguing against is the idea that any 'universal' target will inherently feel out of place on every platform, that writing multiple GUI frontends targeting only the platforms that actually matter for your application isn't nearly as hard as developers make it out to be, and that ultimately native GUI frontends will make user's lives much better because they fit the system they're a part of. > But the main point is, why would you want to invest all your development efforts into a proprietary API that locks you in and is under the control of a single company? You're not locked in to anything, you structure your code such that the platform-specific portion can be swapped out for each platform. This is hardly a new concept.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      "What I'm arguing against is the idea that any 'universal' target will inherently feel out of place on every platform," Inherently? Why? Maybe that's what the companies that make them want you to think, so they keep you trapped in their walled garden. I'm not falling for it.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I did give a reason, maybe it was too subtle: the majority of your market is on one or maybe two devices and focusing on a better experience on those devices will make your users' lives better as opposed to cobbling together some compromised jank interface in the name of capturing a few outliers.

mthoms 5y ago
A few outliers? The mobile market share is about 50:50 iOS vs. Android (at least in North America).
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  But mobile is an outlier use case for a whole lot of things you might make software for. What's the mobile market for CAD software? High-end photo editing or audio work? Programming?
  - mthoms 5y ago
    And desktop is an outlier use case for lots of things. What point are you making?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      I don't disagree. I'm saying stop caring so much about achieving some 'universal' and just focus on the most important platform(s) for what your application does, and make your application fit those platforms as best it can.
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        Your advice seems targeted at app developers, and for that, maybe it is good advice. (depends on the product, really. Way back in 1996 Hotmail proved that web based apps could compete with native apps, for email apps anyway) But this discussion is not about what app developers should do today, given the current state of browsers. It is about whether the browser makers should support enhanced capabilities. This is different. If the browser makers did support more, of course, your advice would become even less likely to be good advice, since you could make it "fit those platforms" just as well. I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. Now it is just a matter of supporting all the things they might expect in the app.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. I do, and I think this is obvious to anyone who has spent time using both. > Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. It's much deeper than that. Native applications using native widgets integrate much better with the way the OS works. You can notice this in the little things like how windows behave, how drag and drop works, notifications, task management, system tray usage, etc. > I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. I think that's a terrible metric. People have gotten used to having shitty local monopoly ISPs too, it doesn't mean that's the way we should be doing things.
        5y ago
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Yeah and I actually develop CAD software. I worked on stuff in the 90s that ran on multiple platforms, then they gave up on that and went all windows, which sucked. Now (rejoining the same company 23 years later) the new initiative is all web based (and yes it does run on mobile, which makes plenty of sense for a lot of the market which isn't design per se but is typically used on site). The web version is damn impressive, btw. But again, it sucks having to decide between mac and windows, or having a whole ton of effort going into supporting both. (and linux is lowest priority)
robbrown451 5y ago
The only reason it should be a "jank interface" is because the browser makers haven't been doing all they can to make browsers capable, which is basically what you are arguing against. That's circular logic. I don't see browser apps being janky. Certainly not mine, and it is an intensely graphical app that also takes full advantage of the web audio api. (it also does several things that native apps can't do, such as it's ability to synchronize and layer graphics on top of youtube music videos) Some of them are indeed janky, but plenty of native apps are too. Do you do apps? I'd be happy to compare mine side by side to any native app. But the main point is, why would you want to invest all your development efforts into a proprietary API that locks you in and is under the control of a single company?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > The only reason it should be a "jank interface" is because the browser makers haven't been doing all they can to make browsers capable, which is basically what you are arguing against. That's circular logic. What I'm arguing against is the idea that any 'universal' target will inherently feel out of place on every platform, that writing multiple GUI frontends targeting only the platforms that actually matter for your application isn't nearly as hard as developers make it out to be, and that ultimately native GUI frontends will make user's lives much better because they fit the system they're a part of. > But the main point is, why would you want to invest all your development efforts into a proprietary API that locks you in and is under the control of a single company? You're not locked in to anything, you structure your code such that the platform-specific portion can be swapped out for each platform. This is hardly a new concept.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    "What I'm arguing against is the idea that any 'universal' target will inherently feel out of place on every platform," Inherently? Why? Maybe that's what the companies that make them want you to think, so they keep you trapped in their walled garden. I'm not falling for it.