3 ms·

> Because supporting 4 platforms is harder than supporting 1. True, and yet completely irrelevant, because every moderate-size app (and even many small ones) h

> Because supporting 4 platforms is harder than supporting 1. True, and yet completely irrelevant, because every moderate-size app (and even many small ones) have at least three clients already: iOS, Android, and web (which may then be bundled into a desktop psuedo-app using Electron), and so they already have three different platforms to support and end-user devices to debug, in the exact scenario you said that they're trying to avoid.

kube-system 5y ago
If you're using Electron, you're offloading much of that work to someone else. You're still effectively doing the whole "write once, run everywhere" thing.
- throw10920 5y ago
  Many companies don't use Electron for either their iOS or Android apps - they do native ports. So, again, three completely separate codebases.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, an alternative answer to OPs question is that, literally, desktop apps do exist. I don't think they literally thought desktop apps don't exist, though.
    - throw10920 5y ago
      How is this relevant to any of my comments?
selfmodruntime 5y ago
So then we are back at the start. Supporting 3 Platforms is better than supporting 7
- throw10920 5y ago
  No, we're not back at the start. The argument was > supporting 4 platforms is harder than supporting 1 and > It’s easier to point them all to a URL in a browser than to debug issues on an end user PC ...except that neither of those are valid, because (1) companies already support more than a single platform and (2) they already implement non-web clients for iOS and Android, so the debugging ease argument doesn't apply either. Companies already shown that they're willing to invest in n+1 platforms to get more profit - that is, they've already decided that 3 is better than 1, so why would 7 (or 4) not be better than 3?
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  If those three platforms are "tiny screen", "medium screen", and "desktop-width screen", who loses?

kube-system 5y ago

If you're using Electron, you're offloading much of that work to someone else. You're still effectively doing the whole "write once, run everywhere" thing.

throw10920 5y ago
Many companies don't use Electron for either their iOS or Android apps - they do native ports. So, again, three completely separate codebases.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, an alternative answer to OPs question is that, literally, desktop apps do exist. I don't think they literally thought desktop apps don't exist, though.
  - throw10920 5y ago
    How is this relevant to any of my comments?

selfmodruntime 5y ago

So then we are back at the start. Supporting 3 Platforms is better than supporting 7

throw10920 5y ago
No, we're not back at the start. The argument was > supporting 4 platforms is harder than supporting 1 and > It’s easier to point them all to a URL in a browser than to debug issues on an end user PC ...except that neither of those are valid, because (1) companies already support more than a single platform and (2) they already implement non-web clients for iOS and Android, so the debugging ease argument doesn't apply either. Companies already shown that they're willing to invest in n+1 platforms to get more profit - that is, they've already decided that 3 is better than 1, so why would 7 (or 4) not be better than 3?
aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
If those three platforms are "tiny screen", "medium screen", and "desktop-width screen", who loses?