5 ms·

Financial Times Hits 1M Users On HTML5 Site That Dodges Apple’s Tax

53 points by llambda 15y ago

MrEnigma 15y ago
And if they were in newsstand, maybe they'd have 40% more people, and making even more money. That said, I'm glad to see people can go at it without Apple as well.
- spamizbad 15y ago
  Eh, I doubt it. 1M is pretty impressive for FT's "niche." Unlike the WSJ, it's not dumbed-down for the general public, so it's audience is going to be significantly smaller than a mainstream newspaper.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Shit, now that you've made that good point about their niche I'm starting to rink my first reaction to this. Maybe a million is pretty impressive after all.
corin_ 15y ago
Anyone who subscribes to the FT can attest to just how great their ipad site is. I honestly can't think of a native app that does what they do better, the entire interface is lovely.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Has anyone used it on any other tablets? Curious to know how well it works.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    They've only been marketing it "for iPad and iPhone", and they use strict user-agent checking against PCs and my blackberry. I could of course be wrong, maybe their marketing doesn't line up with the devices they actually support.
- borism 15y ago
  Anyone who subscribes to the FT can attest to just how great their ipad site is. I thought it was HTML5 site?
  - corin_ 15y ago
    It uses that, yes, but it's marketed as being for iPad/iPhone, and I believe it uses iOS-specific code. It's hosted at app.ft.com and is seperate to their main website.
waterside81 15y ago
News sites are really starting to get their act together and present content in mobile-friendly manners. The Toronto Star just launched an iPad optimized site at read.thestar.com - and it's awesome. They're using Pressly (no affiliation). Highly recommend taking a peek if you're into mobile news design.
WestCoastJustin 15y ago
I'm not sure if this story is even news worthy but here is my take. Personally, I never really understood why most people flocked to the app store rather than using the already existing www mobile sites? Gmail is a good example -- why would I download the app when I can just go to the mobile site? This is especially true if you're running a pay wall and have to fork over 30% ;) The app needs to be updated constantly but the mobile site doesn't. Am I missing something? I guess you miss out on people searching for your app on the app store.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  It can be much easier to separate people from their money using the App Store model. As soon as you throw up a long-ass payment screen, where I have to fill in name, billing address, CC info, etc, a lot of people will bail, both out of distrust for you and sheer inconvenience (doubly true for platforms with meh text input like phones and tablets). Compare with integrating with a payment service that is almost guaranteed to already be set up correctly and is a single password away from transaction.
  - sedev 15y ago
    One can hardly emphasize this point enough. iOS users buy shit. The process of buying stuff on iOS is easy, easy, easy. It's unusual for it to be more than just the password prompt and the tiny pause for verification. When buying things is that easy, people buy more, and developers genuinely do make it up on volume. That's why the iOS App Store does so well - it has a solid track record of making money for developers. That's why developers in the iOS App Store put up with the restrictions it imposes - because you can make good money there.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  Native Apps are faster. Frankly, there isn't even a debate to be had. Native low level code will execute faster and be more efficient than web apps rendered in the browser using high level languages like JS. This is of course assuming the app is more than just a UIWebView, though. Obviously it depends on the site and the quality of each app, but as a rule of thumb a half decent native app will beat out even the best web apps or mobile sites, which I might add are far and few between. Most web apps and mobile sites offer an awful experience. A great example is Google Music. Why do I prefer the native 3rd party gMusic for iOS over Google's web app? Where do I even begin. How about, every single thing about the native app is better, faster, more responsive and less buggy without one exception, period. That covers it pretty well. Even if we are talking about something simple like news, there are still huge advantages to native apps. For example, lets say I'm on the subway. I have two iOS devices. I launch the NYT app on one and go to newyorktimes.com in MobileSafari on the other. Which will actually have news on it? Likewise, the subway goes above ground temporarily and I get a quick 3G spot. I do the same thing. Which will end up with more content, the mobile-fied homepage of NYT, or the much more efficient data pulled down by the app? Native apps still offer advantages that the web can't begin to duplicate. If they didn't, we would all be using Chrome OS right now.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
A whole million huh? Sorry, I'm really not impressed. Why is this becoming about native versus html5. The article has kind of an anti-Apple subtext to it too. I don't know. There was just something off about the whole post. Native and web both have pros and cons. Some site used html5 despite the app store trend. Big whoop. I hope people use both in the future and I hope web apps get faster and the app store reduces fees. It's kind of a non story like filler to keep a page on TC filled for a bit.
- tomkr 15y ago
  I thought the whole "Web-apps makers are outsmarting Apple" angle was done by now. One of the reasons these kinds of sites work well is because Apple does a pretty nice job of allowing you to "appify" them. That kind of support makes it really nice, and shows that Apple is not trying to force people into the App Store. You might argue they overcharge you for using the App Store, but mobile web apps, when done well, are serious contenders for certain use cases. So there's really no reason to focus on this kind of drama.

53 points by llambda 15y ago

And if they were in newsstand, maybe they'd have 40% more people, and making even more money. That said, I'm glad to see people can go at it without Apple as well.

spamizbad 15y ago
Eh, I doubt it. 1M is pretty impressive for FT's "niche." Unlike the WSJ, it's not dumbed-down for the general public, so it's audience is going to be significantly smaller than a mainstream newspaper.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Shit, now that you've made that good point about their niche I'm starting to rink my first reaction to this. Maybe a million is pretty impressive after all.

corin_ 15y ago

Anyone who subscribes to the FT can attest to just how great their ipad site is. I honestly can't think of a native app that does what they do better, the entire interface is lovely.

justincormack 15y ago
Has anyone used it on any other tablets? Curious to know how well it works.
- corin_ 15y ago
  They've only been marketing it "for iPad and iPhone", and they use strict user-agent checking against PCs and my blackberry. I could of course be wrong, maybe their marketing doesn't line up with the devices they actually support.
borism 15y ago
Anyone who subscribes to the FT can attest to just how great their ipad site is. I thought it was HTML5 site?
- corin_ 15y ago
  It uses that, yes, but it's marketed as being for iPad/iPhone, and I believe it uses iOS-specific code. It's hosted at app.ft.com and is seperate to their main website.

waterside81 15y ago

News sites are really starting to get their act together and present content in mobile-friendly manners. The Toronto Star just launched an iPad optimized site at read.thestar.com - and it's awesome. They're using Pressly (no affiliation). Highly recommend taking a peek if you're into mobile news design.

WestCoastJustin 15y ago

I'm not sure if this story is even news worthy but here is my take. Personally, I never really understood why most people flocked to the app store rather than using the already existing www mobile sites? Gmail is a good example -- why would I download the app when I can just go to the mobile site? This is especially true if you're running a pay wall and have to fork over 30% ;) The app needs to be updated constantly but the mobile site doesn't. Am I missing something? I guess you miss out on people searching for your app on the app store.

potatolicious 15y ago
It can be much easier to separate people from their money using the App Store model. As soon as you throw up a long-ass payment screen, where I have to fill in name, billing address, CC info, etc, a lot of people will bail, both out of distrust for you and sheer inconvenience (doubly true for platforms with meh text input like phones and tablets). Compare with integrating with a payment service that is almost guaranteed to already be set up correctly and is a single password away from transaction.
- sedev 15y ago
  One can hardly emphasize this point enough. iOS users buy shit. The process of buying stuff on iOS is easy, easy, easy. It's unusual for it to be more than just the password prompt and the tiny pause for verification. When buying things is that easy, people buy more, and developers genuinely do make it up on volume. That's why the iOS App Store does so well - it has a solid track record of making money for developers. That's why developers in the iOS App Store put up with the restrictions it imposes - because you can make good money there.
shinratdr 15y ago
Native Apps are faster. Frankly, there isn't even a debate to be had. Native low level code will execute faster and be more efficient than web apps rendered in the browser using high level languages like JS. This is of course assuming the app is more than just a UIWebView, though. Obviously it depends on the site and the quality of each app, but as a rule of thumb a half decent native app will beat out even the best web apps or mobile sites, which I might add are far and few between. Most web apps and mobile sites offer an awful experience. A great example is Google Music. Why do I prefer the native 3rd party gMusic for iOS over Google's web app? Where do I even begin. How about, every single thing about the native app is better, faster, more responsive and less buggy without one exception, period. That covers it pretty well. Even if we are talking about something simple like news, there are still huge advantages to native apps. For example, lets say I'm on the subway. I have two iOS devices. I launch the NYT app on one and go to newyorktimes.com in MobileSafari on the other. Which will actually have news on it? Likewise, the subway goes above ground temporarily and I get a quick 3G spot. I do the same thing. Which will end up with more content, the mobile-fied homepage of NYT, or the much more efficient data pulled down by the app? Native apps still offer advantages that the web can't begin to duplicate. If they didn't, we would all be using Chrome OS right now.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

A whole million huh? Sorry, I'm really not impressed. Why is this becoming about native versus html5. The article has kind of an anti-Apple subtext to it too. I don't know. There was just something off about the whole post. Native and web both have pros and cons. Some site used html5 despite the app store trend. Big whoop. I hope people use both in the future and I hope web apps get faster and the app store reduces fees. It's kind of a non story like filler to keep a page on TC filled for a bit.

tomkr 15y ago
I thought the whole "Web-apps makers are outsmarting Apple" angle was done by now. One of the reasons these kinds of sites work well is because Apple does a pretty nice job of allowing you to "appify" them. That kind of support makes it really nice, and shows that Apple is not trying to force people into the App Store. You might argue they overcharge you for using the App Store, but mobile web apps, when done well, are serious contenders for certain use cases. So there's really no reason to focus on this kind of drama.