3 ms·

> The web is an app delivery platform now, not just an information delivery platform. No arguments there. > Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the cli

> The web is an app delivery platform now, not just an information delivery platform. No arguments there. > Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised. I don't agree with the "should" here at all. Lots of the stuff is done on the client these days which could be done cheaper on the server. If I'm visiting a site that's developed as an application then I fully expect to running a bunch of JS, no qualms there. But there is no reason my phone should be forced to build a bunch of HTML just so I can read an article, and that's the problem: people are developing information sites as "apps". This is a large factor of why my phone can't hold a charge for a full day.

MR4D 4y ago
> people are developing information sites as "apps" This statement nails the problem that all of us suffer from. It’s like people have to add “feature” to make their site compelling because the information on it is not good enough.
- osrec 4y ago
  I would happily build a service that simply took all the JS heavy sites people visit and present them as basic HTML. Unfortunately, I don't think there'd be enough takers to make it a viable product. Information for free, without ads, is tough to do.
thih9 4y ago
> But there is no reason my phone should be forced to build a bunch of HTML just so I can read an article But the goal usually isn’t to let you read an article. Often the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription. Apps can be good for all that.
- jibe 4y ago
  Original comment: users get a HUGE amount of value from JS You are correct here: the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription But I think that contradicts the idea users get a lot of value from JS. You are correct, and
- sodapopcan 4y ago
  The word "app" is a bit overloaded and I really just mean a buttload of client-side JS. What you're describing there is app-like but can be easily delivered with server-render HTML with minimal client-side JS enhancements. When I say "app" I'm more talking about an in-browser text editor, an image editor, a DAW, etc.
rudasn 4y ago
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, try and switch javascript off on your mobile device. It's like using an ad blocker, really. But because we're not neanderthals, you can also whitelist the sites/apps you like to run JS (in Chrome) and/or use another browser for your JS-powered sites/apps.
- sodapopcan 4y ago
  Right, but I often want to read those sites so I don't bother (but perhaps I should go for it). Though really I'm speaking vicariously through the hoards of non-technical people who don't even know what JS is who enjoy long battery life.
  - c0nfused 4y ago
    You can enable per domain by clicking on the lock icon by the URL. That said the modern web is generally very broken with js off, but it does get rid of most cookie banners, modal email sign ups prompts and generally lets your read article number 6 of the 5 free ones.

MR4D 4y ago

> people are developing information sites as "apps" This statement nails the problem that all of us suffer from. It’s like people have to add “feature” to make their site compelling because the information on it is not good enough.

osrec 4y ago
I would happily build a service that simply took all the JS heavy sites people visit and present them as basic HTML. Unfortunately, I don't think there'd be enough takers to make it a viable product. Information for free, without ads, is tough to do.

thih9 4y ago

> But there is no reason my phone should be forced to build a bunch of HTML just so I can read an article But the goal usually isn’t to let you read an article. Often the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription. Apps can be good for all that.

jibe 4y ago
Original comment: users get a HUGE amount of value from JS You are correct here: the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription But I think that contradicts the idea users get a lot of value from JS. You are correct, and
sodapopcan 4y ago
The word "app" is a bit overloaded and I really just mean a buttload of client-side JS. What you're describing there is app-like but can be easily delivered with server-render HTML with minimal client-side JS enhancements. When I say "app" I'm more talking about an in-browser text editor, an image editor, a DAW, etc.

rudasn 4y ago

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, try and switch javascript off on your mobile device. It's like using an ad blocker, really. But because we're not neanderthals, you can also whitelist the sites/apps you like to run JS (in Chrome) and/or use another browser for your JS-powered sites/apps.

sodapopcan 4y ago
Right, but I often want to read those sites so I don't bother (but perhaps I should go for it). Though really I'm speaking vicariously through the hoards of non-technical people who don't even know what JS is who enjoy long battery life.
- c0nfused 4y ago
  You can enable per domain by clicking on the lock icon by the URL. That said the modern web is generally very broken with js off, but it does get rid of most cookie banners, modal email sign ups prompts and generally lets your read article number 6 of the 5 free ones.