4 ms·
They are, but they're also aware of the effort vs return on dealing with a "small percentage of the population" as you admit. Sometimes its worth it, often it i
by manigandham 4y ago
They are, but they're also aware of the effort vs return on dealing with a "small percentage of the population" as you admit. Sometimes its worth it, often it isn't.
- yellowapple 4y agoExcept that it literally takes more effort to exclude them than it does to not do so. Bolt is the prime example here: they already have a working web app, and they go out of their way to block people from using it instead of the smartphone app, seemingly only in locales where they believe most people have smartphones. Why? What does that accomplish? It'd be understandable if the smartphone apps came first and the developers decided a web app wasn't worth it, but a lot of these smartphone-app-only developers use PhoneGap and other tools wherein one already has to write a web app.
- manigandham 4y agoThis thread is about web vs apps in general. I don't know why Bolt does what they do, but generally it's a lot of effort to maintain both interfaces for mobile users, often with entirely different teams, frameworks, language stacks, deployment models and more just to end up in the same place.
- yellowapple 4y agoLike I said: it's understandable when it's actually a native mobile app. It's far less understandable when it's something like Uber or Facebook or Reddit that's very obviously just an HTML/CSS/JS site in a "native app" wrapper.
- manigandham 4y agoUber and Facebook are not HTML apps in a wrapper.
- yellowapple 4y agoAh, right, forgot that Facebook invented React Native... in which case my point still stands, since one of the very selling points of React Native is to use the same code for both "native" and web.