3 ms·

I don't know, let me ask the anti-Electron gang their thoughts about less battery life just by running a browser environment instead of a native app.

uncomputation 4y ago
This doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t have an Electron app on iOS anyways. If you used Electron for desktop, you would generate an iOS bundle for the App Store but OP is suggesting just a web app in the vein of HN, just accessed via the browser. The only thing you would use Electron for is desktop but, also like HN, nobody accesses tumblr via a desktop app to begin with. They use a browser.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  From the article > Apple’s restrictions on third-party browsers, and the limitations it puts on Safari/WebKit (its own browser tools) have hobbled “web apps,” Though I'm sure you can also ask many product managers how well native apps on iOS perform due to web apps (many companies have data on both). For whatever reason, users prefer native apps
- Aldo_MX 4y ago
  > You wouldn’t have an Electron app on iOS anyways. You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not building an app specifically with Electron, but building an app which requires a browser. The browser is expensive in terms of resource usage, which results in less battery life. Using a browser is OK for an app intended for a light usage session (like booking a flight). But not OK for an app which is intended for heavy usage sessions (like browsing pictures in an infinite timeline). There's a reason Slack (which already has a reputation of impacting your battery life) decided to create a native app for mobile instead of using an Electron-like framework like Capacitor[1]. [1]: https://capacitorjs.com/ https://capacitorjs.com/
corrral 4y ago
I expect there's a ton of overlap between the anti-Electron "gang" and folks who don't think a website needs an app at all. Plus most of those website "apps" are just a bunch of webviews anyway, so you're not going to save battery by using them. Just like Electron.

uncomputation 4y ago

This doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t have an Electron app on iOS anyways. If you used Electron for desktop, you would generate an iOS bundle for the App Store but OP is suggesting just a web app in the vein of HN, just accessed via the browser. The only thing you would use Electron for is desktop but, also like HN, nobody accesses tumblr via a desktop app to begin with. They use a browser.

woojoo666 4y ago
From the article > Apple’s restrictions on third-party browsers, and the limitations it puts on Safari/WebKit (its own browser tools) have hobbled “web apps,” Though I'm sure you can also ask many product managers how well native apps on iOS perform due to web apps (many companies have data on both). For whatever reason, users prefer native apps
Aldo_MX 4y ago
> You wouldn’t have an Electron app on iOS anyways. You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not building an app specifically with Electron, but building an app which requires a browser. The browser is expensive in terms of resource usage, which results in less battery life. Using a browser is OK for an app intended for a light usage session (like booking a flight). But not OK for an app which is intended for heavy usage sessions (like browsing pictures in an infinite timeline). There's a reason Slack (which already has a reputation of impacting your battery life) decided to create a native app for mobile instead of using an Electron-like framework like Capacitor[1]. [1]: https://capacitorjs.com/ https://capacitorjs.com/

corrral 4y ago

I expect there's a ton of overlap between the anti-Electron "gang" and folks who don't think a website needs an app at all. Plus most of those website "apps" are just a bunch of webviews anyway, so you're not going to save battery by using them. Just like Electron.