5 ms·

Every comment suggesting it brings browsers closer to feature parity with apps is a great argument against the feature. Browsers aren't operating systems. Stop

by sidlls 4y ago

Every comment suggesting it brings browsers closer to feature parity with apps is a great argument against the feature. Browsers aren't operating systems. Stop trying to make them be that. It has been a terrible disaster so far, and likely will continue to be going forward, given the lingua franca of development in browsers and all the terrible development practices that have grown up around it.

hamandcheese 4y ago
The web is our only hope to not pay Apple/Google 15-30% of all digital commerce. Reaching parity with native apps is crucial.
- scarface74 4y ago
  None of the current messaging apps require or even support in app purchases. So the argument about paying anyone 30% is moot.
  - randomtwiddler 4y ago
    Kind of a narrow view. Not all of us who want this are building messaging apps.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So what type of app are you writing that has to accept in app purchases and are push notifications the only thing stopping you from having a much worse web app than a native app?
      - randomtwiddler 4y ago
        Why does a native app have to be better than a web app? Quite the assumption. The snark keeps me from even wanting to engage you...
        scarface74 4y ago
        Do they have to be? Who knows? But since 2007, Apple, Palm, Blackberry and Microsoft have all at one point or the other have said you don’t need native mobile apps and the web was good enough. It never was. Facebook tried the whole cross platform web app in a wrapper and decided it wasn’t good enough. Even while Google is extolling then virtues of its own cross platform tooling, it’s moving toward apps that use native frameworks. https://9to5google.com/2021/10/10/google-ios-apps-native/ https://9to5google.com/2021/10/10/google-ios-apps-native/
        randomtwiddler 4y ago
        Ahh yes, the infamous Facebook failure. Anyone can write a bad app. That's not necessarily a technology failure. But it's easier to blame the tech than to admit they did something badly. Everyone wants web apps to help sell hardware, right up until your app store grows into a money maker. Then the incentives are different. Regardless, today's mobile systems are much better, web browsers are much better. It is much easier to write a web app that is functionally identical to native than it used to be. Modern reality. Conversation rates for PWAs are higher than mobile apps because there is less friction in the installation process. Load times are often lower, which can be an overall superior experience. If I'm a small shop, trying to get on someone's mobile device, these items matter a lot. Also development costs are much lower when you can share code for your mobile app and your website. The value add of being in the mobile stores is pretty minimal. Discovery is poor, search is poor, then there is constant churn in policies, submission process, APIs, development environments/languages, fees, etc. In contrast to this, the browsers hold very very high backwards compatibility. Churn will be in the support libraries or framework you adopt and not fundamental to the platform.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Well let’s see. 1. Mobile apps convert higher than the web. https://buildfire.com/mobile-apps-convert-higher/ https://buildfire.com/mobile-apps-convert-higher/ 2. Developers were clamoring for native apps each time. Not the mobile platforms. You act as if the modern web development environment isn’t a clusterfuck of complexity compared to modern IDEs for native apps. 3. Both Apple and Google have initiatives where you can have small instantly installable “applet” equivalents that make downloads fast and the apps are more responsive. 4. Cost is lower for the developer. But at the cost of a much worse user experience. 5. Browsers might have “higher backwards compatibility”. But the dependency hell and ever changing landscape of the front end framework of the week is real.
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        Scroll up, there are plenty of examples.
  - turboturbo 4y ago
    Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the statement by the post you replied to. The relevant criterium that follows from the argument is the prevalence of real-time notifications in paid apps.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    None of the current messaging apps require or even support in app purchases. Apple's does. My wife paid 99¢ to send people Svengoolie stickers.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So did your wife have to pay to message someone and what does this have to do with push notifications?
randomtwiddler 4y ago
The "browsers aren't operating systems" ship has sailed long ago, exhibit a: electron apps. Think of it this way. When feature parity of browser sandbox closes on everything a desktop app might want, you no longer need to build with electron but can simply ship 5-15MB of js+css and use the stock browser instead. Similar on mobile. Which will result in: Smaller downloads. Lower memory footprint. Faster launch.
- sidlls 4y ago
  The more low-level access browsers are required to expose for application development, the worse things will be in almost every dimension, but especially security and performance.
  - randomtwiddler 4y ago
    I'm curious, how does adding notifications effect security negatively exactly? Performance? All this functionality is already available for apps including the security model. Nothing new is happening here. App security is an issue, but it's one big tech is already dumping resources into solving. But, frankly, browsers have some of the best management features for culling analytics, telemetry, watching the traffic and requests being made. It's many times easier for me to see what a web app is doing on the network, and write something to stop it, as compared to a native app.
- randomtwiddler 4y ago
  Also need to add, no big tech gatekeepers. Probably the biggest boon.
kristiandupont 4y ago
>It has been a terrible disaster so far I would argue that it has been something closest to the greatest success of any OS.

by sidlls 4y ago

hamandcheese 4y ago

The web is our only hope to not pay Apple/Google 15-30% of all digital commerce. Reaching parity with native apps is crucial.

scarface74 4y ago
None of the current messaging apps require or even support in app purchases. So the argument about paying anyone 30% is moot.
- randomtwiddler 4y ago
  Kind of a narrow view. Not all of us who want this are building messaging apps.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So what type of app are you writing that has to accept in app purchases and are push notifications the only thing stopping you from having a much worse web app than a native app?
    - randomtwiddler 4y ago
      Why does a native app have to be better than a web app? Quite the assumption. The snark keeps me from even wanting to engage you...
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Do they have to be? Who knows? But since 2007, Apple, Palm, Blackberry and Microsoft have all at one point or the other have said you don’t need native mobile apps and the web was good enough. It never was. Facebook tried the whole cross platform web app in a wrapper and decided it wasn’t good enough. Even while Google is extolling then virtues of its own cross platform tooling, it’s moving toward apps that use native frameworks. https://9to5google.com/2021/10/10/google-ios-apps-native/ https://9to5google.com/2021/10/10/google-ios-apps-native/
        randomtwiddler 4y ago
        Ahh yes, the infamous Facebook failure. Anyone can write a bad app. That's not necessarily a technology failure. But it's easier to blame the tech than to admit they did something badly. Everyone wants web apps to help sell hardware, right up until your app store grows into a money maker. Then the incentives are different. Regardless, today's mobile systems are much better, web browsers are much better. It is much easier to write a web app that is functionally identical to native than it used to be. Modern reality. Conversation rates for PWAs are higher than mobile apps because there is less friction in the installation process. Load times are often lower, which can be an overall superior experience. If I'm a small shop, trying to get on someone's mobile device, these items matter a lot. Also development costs are much lower when you can share code for your mobile app and your website. The value add of being in the mobile stores is pretty minimal. Discovery is poor, search is poor, then there is constant churn in policies, submission process, APIs, development environments/languages, fees, etc. In contrast to this, the browsers hold very very high backwards compatibility. Churn will be in the support libraries or framework you adopt and not fundamental to the platform.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Well let’s see. 1. Mobile apps convert higher than the web. https://buildfire.com/mobile-apps-convert-higher/ https://buildfire.com/mobile-apps-convert-higher/ 2. Developers were clamoring for native apps each time. Not the mobile platforms. You act as if the modern web development environment isn’t a clusterfuck of complexity compared to modern IDEs for native apps. 3. Both Apple and Google have initiatives where you can have small instantly installable “applet” equivalents that make downloads fast and the apps are more responsive. 4. Cost is lower for the developer. But at the cost of a much worse user experience. 5. Browsers might have “higher backwards compatibility”. But the dependency hell and ever changing landscape of the front end framework of the week is real.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Scroll up, there are plenty of examples.
- turboturbo 4y ago
  Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the statement by the post you replied to. The relevant criterium that follows from the argument is the prevalence of real-time notifications in paid apps.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  None of the current messaging apps require or even support in app purchases. Apple's does. My wife paid 99¢ to send people Svengoolie stickers.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So did your wife have to pay to message someone and what does this have to do with push notifications?

randomtwiddler 4y ago

The "browsers aren't operating systems" ship has sailed long ago, exhibit a: electron apps. Think of it this way. When feature parity of browser sandbox closes on everything a desktop app might want, you no longer need to build with electron but can simply ship 5-15MB of js+css and use the stock browser instead. Similar on mobile. Which will result in: Smaller downloads. Lower memory footprint. Faster launch.

sidlls 4y ago
The more low-level access browsers are required to expose for application development, the worse things will be in almost every dimension, but especially security and performance.
- randomtwiddler 4y ago
  I'm curious, how does adding notifications effect security negatively exactly? Performance? All this functionality is already available for apps including the security model. Nothing new is happening here. App security is an issue, but it's one big tech is already dumping resources into solving. But, frankly, browsers have some of the best management features for culling analytics, telemetry, watching the traffic and requests being made. It's many times easier for me to see what a web app is doing on the network, and write something to stop it, as compared to a native app.
randomtwiddler 4y ago
Also need to add, no big tech gatekeepers. Probably the biggest boon.

kristiandupont 4y ago

>It has been a terrible disaster so far I would argue that it has been something closest to the greatest success of any OS.