4 ms·

Do we really though? Web developers do of course, but I've hardly touched web development myself. Web interfaces etc., are a choice, but I think it's driven by

Do we really though? Web developers do of course, but I've hardly touched web development myself. Web interfaces etc., are a choice, but I think it's driven by commercial needs-- a desire for subscription revenue instead of one-time sales, etc. Much of the modern cloud-based or half-online world is quite unnatural from a user perspective, and where there is no need for monetisation-- for example with OpenOffice, the software can expected to remain a desktop application.

constantcrying 2y ago
Certainly there has been almost no pushback. I don't think most users really care for native applications, what they like to see is clicking on something and having it work instantly, web apps deliver that.
- jwells89 2y ago
  I think an overwhelming majority of users aren’t technical enough or well enough versed in UI/UX to be able to put a finger on the frustrations they experience with software, and this is something that’s important to remember when considering complaints coming from a more technically-inclined minority — even if only a small number of techy folks are unhappy, these frustrations likely exist in the larger userbase too even if most users are unable to articulate them. In addition, some percentage undoubtedly perceive these issues but are just too busy to bother with sending in feedback. With all that considered, I believe the extent of pushback that is possible is quite limited as long as the app technically works, but this is far from an accurate indicator of user happiness.
  - skydhash 2y ago
    > I think an overwhelming majority of users aren’t technical enough or well enough versed in UI/UX to be able to put a finger on the frustrations they experience with software They're ok with it because they don't know it could be better. A spinner every 2 minutes? 12 minutes to open slack? They accept it as fact of life until a better software comes in, and now they're wondering why they haven't come across something like this sooner.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Sadly, I think people are starting to accept, as a fact of life, that software gets worse every time a developer touches it. People dread "upgrades" because it's going to get slower, buggier, the UI is going to change unnecessarily, and there's nothing they can do about it besides try to stay on the previous version, which is often impossible with web software.
edanm 2y ago
> Web developers do of course, but I've hardly touched web development myself. Web interfaces etc., are a choice, but I think it's driven by commercial needs-- a desire for subscription revenue instead of one-time sales, etc. This is certainly a big part of it, but it's not the whole story. For one thing, there were ways to achieve those business models with native software too - "web-based=subscription" isn't actually a requirement, or the only way to go. But users in the early 2000s, many of them more technical than users today, rejected this idea. It felt like native apps had to cost money one time, and doing otherwise would be wrong. But with Web, since users understood that it was hosted elsewhere, it "made sense" for it to be a subscription, so users went with it. This also affected the technical things as well. Auto-updating was incredibly frowned upon in the 2000s - you bought it, you got to keep it as-is. So companies had to work very hard to keep multiple versions working all the time. Most of these biases by technical users have gone away. We now have auto-updating subscription native apps, e.g. Photoshop works that way today. But these technical biases drove the usage of the web, because it was so much technically easier for businesses, and allowed much better business models. (And, and this isn't even getting into the whole "installing software was really hard for users" thing!)
- skydhash 2y ago
  If I bought a license in 2004, then run XP for ten years on the same machine, why should I pay for updates when I don’t need the update? If the license said three years, then I’d know I’d be out of support for the last seven years Everybody knew that updates weren’t free and they’d buy licenses when it was time to move on. But it’s hard to justify moving on when the software is still running fine even on Windows 10.

constantcrying 2y ago

Certainly there has been almost no pushback. I don't think most users really care for native applications, what they like to see is clicking on something and having it work instantly, web apps deliver that.

jwells89 2y ago
I think an overwhelming majority of users aren’t technical enough or well enough versed in UI/UX to be able to put a finger on the frustrations they experience with software, and this is something that’s important to remember when considering complaints coming from a more technically-inclined minority — even if only a small number of techy folks are unhappy, these frustrations likely exist in the larger userbase too even if most users are unable to articulate them. In addition, some percentage undoubtedly perceive these issues but are just too busy to bother with sending in feedback. With all that considered, I believe the extent of pushback that is possible is quite limited as long as the app technically works, but this is far from an accurate indicator of user happiness.
- skydhash 2y ago
  > I think an overwhelming majority of users aren’t technical enough or well enough versed in UI/UX to be able to put a finger on the frustrations they experience with software They're ok with it because they don't know it could be better. A spinner every 2 minutes? 12 minutes to open slack? They accept it as fact of life until a better software comes in, and now they're wondering why they haven't come across something like this sooner.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Sadly, I think people are starting to accept, as a fact of life, that software gets worse every time a developer touches it. People dread "upgrades" because it's going to get slower, buggier, the UI is going to change unnecessarily, and there's nothing they can do about it besides try to stay on the previous version, which is often impossible with web software.

edanm 2y ago

> Web developers do of course, but I've hardly touched web development myself. Web interfaces etc., are a choice, but I think it's driven by commercial needs-- a desire for subscription revenue instead of one-time sales, etc. This is certainly a big part of it, but it's not the whole story. For one thing, there were ways to achieve those business models with native software too - "web-based=subscription" isn't actually a requirement, or the only way to go. But users in the early 2000s, many of them more technical than users today, rejected this idea. It felt like native apps had to cost money one time, and doing otherwise would be wrong. But with Web, since users understood that it was hosted elsewhere, it "made sense" for it to be a subscription, so users went with it. This also affected the technical things as well. Auto-updating was incredibly frowned upon in the 2000s - you bought it, you got to keep it as-is. So companies had to work very hard to keep multiple versions working all the time. Most of these biases by technical users have gone away. We now have auto-updating subscription native apps, e.g. Photoshop works that way today. But these technical biases drove the usage of the web, because it was so much technically easier for businesses, and allowed much better business models. (And, and this isn't even getting into the whole "installing software was really hard for users" thing!)

skydhash 2y ago
If I bought a license in 2004, then run XP for ten years on the same machine, why should I pay for updates when I don’t need the update? If the license said three years, then I’d know I’d be out of support for the last seven years Everybody knew that updates weren’t free and they’d buy licenses when it was time to move on. But it’s hard to justify moving on when the software is still running fine even on Windows 10.