11 ms·

I posted this comment in another thread about apps, but too late for it to really get any responses: - app discoverability sucks ass - apps require updates -

I posted this comment in another thread about apps, but too late for it to really get any responses: - app discoverability sucks ass - apps require updates - app development is unnecessarily tedious and must be done x number of times for x platforms - iOS apps need to be approved by Apple, and you have to play the game by their rules if you want to charge money for them - apps lack basic features of browsers - no universal find, no back/forward buttons, no bookmarking of pages or states, no organizing apps into tabs, etc. Let's be honest: not counting games, the vast majority of the native apps out there would work just fine (or better) as websites. Add API's like access to the camera and there's even less reasons to develop a native app. Apps will be relegated to games and highly sophisticated interfaces, which if I had to guess probably represents around 10% of all the apps out there (heck, most of the games out there could probably be done in the browser).

huxley 15y ago
There were a small number of great CD-ROMs back then. The Voyager Company did as much as was possible given the crappy hardware that existed. Anyhow, I could come up with an equally harsh assessment of web apps as you did of native apps: * web app discoverability sucks (seriously how much money is spent on SEO?) * web apps constantly change on you or disappear when the shop is bought out * web app development can be a multilayered nightmare of browser bugs and code shims * you pretty much need to sell your soul to a bank or Paypal to sell anything on the web (let's see how Stripe works out long term before we declare victory there) * many apps lack basic features like site-wide search, working back/forwards buttons, working bookmarking due to bad Ajax use, incoherent and inconsistent UI, etc. Now, I happen to like web app development better than native app development, but I'm not a big fan of triumphalism in any of its stripes. Heck, the vast majority of websites out there would work just fine (or better) as paper brochures or a rolodex. The web will continue changing and evolving and the browser will only be one of many ways that it will be consumed. Native apps will be integrated with web services more and more over time. Apple has done a spectacular job of monetizing small apps, Google is building a good infrastructure for ad-sponsored apps, I wouldn't discount their long term potential.
- randomdata 15y ago
  "I happen to like web app development better than native app development" I find the distinction to pretty blurry, myself. If you look at Cappuccino, you could practically search and replace a few tokens and have your code natively compile in Cocoa. As web applications become more complex, proper separation of concerns, like MVC, starts to become important. Once you do that, as seen with Cappuccino and echoed in many other frameworks like SproutCore Backbone to name a couple more, the process starts to very closely resemble native development. We now have the web browser playing double duty. We want it to be a hyperlink document viewer and we want it to be a platform for applications. Personally, I would like to see the browser be only a platform for applications and let the hyperlink document viewer be one of the many applications you can run in the browser.
- bad_user 15y ago
  seriously how much money is spent on SEO? Smart companies and individuals don't spend much money on SEO, as most white-hat practices require long-term focus and black-hat practices can get you erased from the Internet. You can't do anything unless you're doing marketing, however marketing must be part of the product and can't be outsourced. With that said, web apps go viral faster than anything else, that's because there's no barrier to entry. You don't have to be a member of the iPhone users club to try out links. web app development can be a multilayered nightmare of browser bugs and code shims Compared to multi-platform development for OS X, iOS, Android, Symbian, WinMo 6, WinMo 7, Windows 7, Windows 8, Blackberry, Samsung Bada, Linux ; it's heaven like. you pretty much need to sell your soul to a bank or Paypal to sell anything on the web Except Paypal or a bank are NOT in the same market as you are. They also don't control the platform you operate on. They couldn't suddenly one day decide that your product should be part of the OS, making their own alternative. If you're getting screwed by Paypal, you're only losing some money. However, if you're getting screwed by Apple, you lose your product and business model.
  - aerique 15y ago
    Compared to multi-platform development for OS X, iOS, Android, Symbian, WinMo 6, WinMo 7, Windows 7, Windows 8, Blackberry, Samsung Bada, Linux ; it's heaven like. You make this sound much worse than it actually is. iOS is where the money is and Android is up and coming. All the others can be either ignored and served with a (funnily enough) web site. Then there are libraries / frameworks that abstract all these platforms away or allow you to use a language that you're experienced in: MonoTouch, PhoneGap, Unity, etc. Now, libraries don't fix all the problems and sometimes you will have to deal with the platform but they do take care of a whole lot.
canes123456 15y ago
Users determine what is successful, not developers - Web app discoverability is much worse - Updates is a minor issue for users - App development is not the user's concern - App store approval is a net win for users. It eases their concerns about malware. - Browser functions are not useful in most apps and the add an extra layer of abstraction Native app can be made into just fine web apps but that is not always good enough. The best apps are still native.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  Web app discoverability is much worse This is especially one of the glaring holes with web apps in relation to their native counterparts. There just isn't a central destination for users to easily assess and access them. If web developers can come together and make this happen on a greater and more open scale than what the App Store, Chrome Store, or any other restricted app directory is currently offering, then the web has a chance at reengaging those native app users. Until then, the web is a jungle.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  Updates are a major issue. Most web-spoilt users don't even understand why apps don't update themselves. Browser functions are useful in most apps, hence the 'back' buttons in the top bar of most iOS apps. People are used to the web nowadays and expect similar functionality from the rest of the software they use. Discoverability is a big problem. The chrome web store is an example, it's interesting, but it's only built into chrome, and we had too many failed "Web directory" projects in the past anyway. There are other routes, like facebook viral apps, but these are also siloed.
  - canes123456 15y ago
    The typical user doesn't care about updates. Most iPhones I see have 15+ uninstalled updates. The response to every Facebook update shows that that the typical user will resist change. Why would silent updates be critical to these kinds of people? I can about what version they are on as a developer but they don't care. The back button is useful to some apps, some of the time. Why should you show it all the time and confuse users? Native back buttons also allow you to show context; you can display information about where the back button takes you.
randomdata 15y ago
"app discoverability sucks ass" Discoverability sucks ass. Period. Unless you already have a strong network, or lots of advertising dollars, the chances of anyone finding your software, of any kind, is low. "apps require updates" While that is true of some implementations, there is no reason why apps cannot be downloaded on each execution. You could even use a URL bar to show the network location of the app, if you want to. "app development is unnecessarily tedious" A modern web application is no better in this regard. In fact, most of the recent frameworks that have sprung up to solve the problem of building web apps all seem to be loosely based on the same ideas from OpenStep that are used in popular native frameworks. "apps lack basic features of browsers - no universal find, no back/forward buttons, no bookmarking of pages or states, no organizing apps into tabs, etc." I mentioned it in an earlier discussion, but it seems worth repeating: The web browser is just another platform API. There is no reason why, say, CocoaTouch could not include those things by default for all apps too. The whole web vs. native discussion is pretty silly because it all comes down to a few specific implementations that we keep pointing to, when anyone can change the state at either end of the spectrum on a whim.
- rmc 15y ago
  there is no reason why apps cannot be downloaded on each execution It would make it much slower to open an application each time. After all, vast majority of applications don't do this, so there must be a reason why.
  - catwell 15y ago
    It wouldn't be such a bad idea if: 1) it only downloaded a new version of the app when it changed (easy with ETags); 2) apps were lightweight (hard on current mobile platforms). If platform vendors and application developers cared, it would be easy to make most applications weigh a few hundred kilobytes. We could then do exactly like what Web apps such as Twitter do natively.
  - randomdata 15y ago
    I don't see why it needs to be any worse than loading a web application. It is the media assets that make any application large, and they are going to be the same size no matter how you package your app.
spot 15y ago
half of these are problems with iOS apps that android solves (eg back button, autoupdate, open publishing). others are also problems on the web (eg discoverability and tedious development on x platforms).
wslh 15y ago
Let's be honest: Native Apps can be reverse engineered, the Web/Cloud don't. And reverse engineering is an important right. When web applications have only limited APIs, limited call rates, and changing everytime I can only think that I can turn on my Apple II and continue to use the same applications as 30 years ago. Again, don't compare Google Spreadsheet with Microsoft Excel, look at the Microsoft balance sheet. If you're interested I've written more rants about this on: - The Data Portability Fact Sheet: http://blog.databigbang.com/the-data-portability-fact-sheet/ http://blog.databigbang.com/the-data-portability-fact-sheet/ - Google Search NoAPI: http://blog.databigbang.com/google-search-no-api/ http://blog.databigbang.com/google-search-no-api/
- simonw 15y ago
  Most interesting apps on my iPhone spend most of their time talking to web APIs, so that's a bit of a moot point. Plus, for the client-side of things view source is a lot easier than decompiling a binary.
  - wslh 15y ago
    Moot point? If the APIs change your applications turn unusable. Look at what Twitter did with third party UI applications. You are only one case. Can you summarize all the application that you use everyday for work? are they native or web applications?
Tloewald 15y ago
* Website discoverability sucks ass; at any rate you can advertise an app on your website and ge the best of both worlds * Websites require connectivity * Web development is unnecessarily tedious and requires coding in multiple half assed languages and targeting different browsers and platforms (and scale) * Most websites don't make any money at all regardless of which rules you play by, but you're playing by google's unknowable rules at minimum * Websites lack basic features of apps, such as offering complete control over the user experience (e.g. Not wasting screen real estate on web browser cruft) * Let's be honest, including games every website could be implemented as an app. I actually agree with your post in many ways, but all your points can be turned around without even being clever or disingenuous. I think some things (e.g. Magazines and most content apps) should be websites not apps. Other things should be apps. A few things should be both. Websites need to devise ways to work offline (which magazine apps do, but suck anyway). Let's take a simple example: Ken Rockwell sells interactive camera manual apps for iOS devices. Could this be a web site? Sure, but not much use when you're hiking or caving or doing a shoot on a building site huh? Also much harder to monetize.

huxley 15y ago

There were a small number of great CD-ROMs back then. The Voyager Company did as much as was possible given the crappy hardware that existed. Anyhow, I could come up with an equally harsh assessment of web apps as you did of native apps: * web app discoverability sucks (seriously how much money is spent on SEO?) * web apps constantly change on you or disappear when the shop is bought out * web app development can be a multilayered nightmare of browser bugs and code shims * you pretty much need to sell your soul to a bank or Paypal to sell anything on the web (let's see how Stripe works out long term before we declare victory there) * many apps lack basic features like site-wide search, working back/forwards buttons, working bookmarking due to bad Ajax use, incoherent and inconsistent UI, etc. Now, I happen to like web app development better than native app development, but I'm not a big fan of triumphalism in any of its stripes. Heck, the vast majority of websites out there would work just fine (or better) as paper brochures or a rolodex. The web will continue changing and evolving and the browser will only be one of many ways that it will be consumed. Native apps will be integrated with web services more and more over time. Apple has done a spectacular job of monetizing small apps, Google is building a good infrastructure for ad-sponsored apps, I wouldn't discount their long term potential.

randomdata 15y ago
"I happen to like web app development better than native app development" I find the distinction to pretty blurry, myself. If you look at Cappuccino, you could practically search and replace a few tokens and have your code natively compile in Cocoa. As web applications become more complex, proper separation of concerns, like MVC, starts to become important. Once you do that, as seen with Cappuccino and echoed in many other frameworks like SproutCore Backbone to name a couple more, the process starts to very closely resemble native development. We now have the web browser playing double duty. We want it to be a hyperlink document viewer and we want it to be a platform for applications. Personally, I would like to see the browser be only a platform for applications and let the hyperlink document viewer be one of the many applications you can run in the browser.
bad_user 15y ago
seriously how much money is spent on SEO? Smart companies and individuals don't spend much money on SEO, as most white-hat practices require long-term focus and black-hat practices can get you erased from the Internet. You can't do anything unless you're doing marketing, however marketing must be part of the product and can't be outsourced. With that said, web apps go viral faster than anything else, that's because there's no barrier to entry. You don't have to be a member of the iPhone users club to try out links. web app development can be a multilayered nightmare of browser bugs and code shims Compared to multi-platform development for OS X, iOS, Android, Symbian, WinMo 6, WinMo 7, Windows 7, Windows 8, Blackberry, Samsung Bada, Linux ; it's heaven like. you pretty much need to sell your soul to a bank or Paypal to sell anything on the web Except Paypal or a bank are NOT in the same market as you are. They also don't control the platform you operate on. They couldn't suddenly one day decide that your product should be part of the OS, making their own alternative. If you're getting screwed by Paypal, you're only losing some money. However, if you're getting screwed by Apple, you lose your product and business model.
- aerique 15y ago
  Compared to multi-platform development for OS X, iOS, Android, Symbian, WinMo 6, WinMo 7, Windows 7, Windows 8, Blackberry, Samsung Bada, Linux ; it's heaven like. You make this sound much worse than it actually is. iOS is where the money is and Android is up and coming. All the others can be either ignored and served with a (funnily enough) web site. Then there are libraries / frameworks that abstract all these platforms away or allow you to use a language that you're experienced in: MonoTouch, PhoneGap, Unity, etc. Now, libraries don't fix all the problems and sometimes you will have to deal with the platform but they do take care of a whole lot.

canes123456 15y ago

Users determine what is successful, not developers - Web app discoverability is much worse - Updates is a minor issue for users - App development is not the user's concern - App store approval is a net win for users. It eases their concerns about malware. - Browser functions are not useful in most apps and the add an extra layer of abstraction Native app can be made into just fine web apps but that is not always good enough. The best apps are still native.

rooshdi 15y ago
Web app discoverability is much worse This is especially one of the glaring holes with web apps in relation to their native counterparts. There just isn't a central destination for users to easily assess and access them. If web developers can come together and make this happen on a greater and more open scale than what the App Store, Chrome Store, or any other restricted app directory is currently offering, then the web has a chance at reengaging those native app users. Until then, the web is a jungle.
zerostar07 15y ago
Updates are a major issue. Most web-spoilt users don't even understand why apps don't update themselves. Browser functions are useful in most apps, hence the 'back' buttons in the top bar of most iOS apps. People are used to the web nowadays and expect similar functionality from the rest of the software they use. Discoverability is a big problem. The chrome web store is an example, it's interesting, but it's only built into chrome, and we had too many failed "Web directory" projects in the past anyway. There are other routes, like facebook viral apps, but these are also siloed.
- canes123456 15y ago
  The typical user doesn't care about updates. Most iPhones I see have 15+ uninstalled updates. The response to every Facebook update shows that that the typical user will resist change. Why would silent updates be critical to these kinds of people? I can about what version they are on as a developer but they don't care. The back button is useful to some apps, some of the time. Why should you show it all the time and confuse users? Native back buttons also allow you to show context; you can display information about where the back button takes you.

randomdata 15y ago

"app discoverability sucks ass" Discoverability sucks ass. Period. Unless you already have a strong network, or lots of advertising dollars, the chances of anyone finding your software, of any kind, is low. "apps require updates" While that is true of some implementations, there is no reason why apps cannot be downloaded on each execution. You could even use a URL bar to show the network location of the app, if you want to. "app development is unnecessarily tedious" A modern web application is no better in this regard. In fact, most of the recent frameworks that have sprung up to solve the problem of building web apps all seem to be loosely based on the same ideas from OpenStep that are used in popular native frameworks. "apps lack basic features of browsers - no universal find, no back/forward buttons, no bookmarking of pages or states, no organizing apps into tabs, etc." I mentioned it in an earlier discussion, but it seems worth repeating: The web browser is just another platform API. There is no reason why, say, CocoaTouch could not include those things by default for all apps too. The whole web vs. native discussion is pretty silly because it all comes down to a few specific implementations that we keep pointing to, when anyone can change the state at either end of the spectrum on a whim.

rmc 15y ago
there is no reason why apps cannot be downloaded on each execution It would make it much slower to open an application each time. After all, vast majority of applications don't do this, so there must be a reason why.
- catwell 15y ago
  It wouldn't be such a bad idea if: 1) it only downloaded a new version of the app when it changed (easy with ETags); 2) apps were lightweight (hard on current mobile platforms). If platform vendors and application developers cared, it would be easy to make most applications weigh a few hundred kilobytes. We could then do exactly like what Web apps such as Twitter do natively.
- randomdata 15y ago
  I don't see why it needs to be any worse than loading a web application. It is the media assets that make any application large, and they are going to be the same size no matter how you package your app.

spot 15y ago

half of these are problems with iOS apps that android solves (eg back button, autoupdate, open publishing). others are also problems on the web (eg discoverability and tedious development on x platforms).

wslh 15y ago

Let's be honest: Native Apps can be reverse engineered, the Web/Cloud don't. And reverse engineering is an important right. When web applications have only limited APIs, limited call rates, and changing everytime I can only think that I can turn on my Apple II and continue to use the same applications as 30 years ago. Again, don't compare Google Spreadsheet with Microsoft Excel, look at the Microsoft balance sheet. If you're interested I've written more rants about this on: - The Data Portability Fact Sheet: http://blog.databigbang.com/the-data-portability-fact-sheet/ http://blog.databigbang.com/the-data-portability-fact-sheet/ - Google Search NoAPI: http://blog.databigbang.com/google-search-no-api/ http://blog.databigbang.com/google-search-no-api/

simonw 15y ago
Most interesting apps on my iPhone spend most of their time talking to web APIs, so that's a bit of a moot point. Plus, for the client-side of things view source is a lot easier than decompiling a binary.
- wslh 15y ago
  Moot point? If the APIs change your applications turn unusable. Look at what Twitter did with third party UI applications. You are only one case. Can you summarize all the application that you use everyday for work? are they native or web applications?

Tloewald 15y ago

* Website discoverability sucks ass; at any rate you can advertise an app on your website and ge the best of both worlds * Websites require connectivity * Web development is unnecessarily tedious and requires coding in multiple half assed languages and targeting different browsers and platforms (and scale) * Most websites don't make any money at all regardless of which rules you play by, but you're playing by google's unknowable rules at minimum * Websites lack basic features of apps, such as offering complete control over the user experience (e.g. Not wasting screen real estate on web browser cruft) * Let's be honest, including games every website could be implemented as an app. I actually agree with your post in many ways, but all your points can be turned around without even being clever or disingenuous. I think some things (e.g. Magazines and most content apps) should be websites not apps. Other things should be apps. A few things should be both. Websites need to devise ways to work offline (which magazine apps do, but suck anyway). Let's take a simple example: Ken Rockwell sells interactive camera manual apps for iOS devices. Could this be a web site? Sure, but not much use when you're hiking or caving or doing a shoot on a building site huh? Also much harder to monetize.