5 ms·

There is no excuse for using HTML5 when the native platform offers you so much more and the user base is substantial. Only cheapos try to get away with it. Web

by anuraj 14y ago

There is no excuse for using HTML5 when the native platform offers you so much more and the user base is substantial. Only cheapos try to get away with it. Web is dead, welcome to app economy!

kombine 14y ago
It's not that the web is dead, but the technology stack on the front end side of things is crappy. There's a lot of hype about front end development of course(yes I expect the downvoting by posting it here on HN), but it is not that the tools are superior, but rather because of the necessity of the web.
- anuraj 14y ago
  I agree .. what I meant when I said 'web is dead' is the new web is made of services accessed through apps. Crappy front end technology and mega monolith browser are no longer required.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> There is no excuse for using HTML5 when the native platform offers you so much more and the user base is substantial. Sure there is - the ability to push rapid updates to the UI, without needing to go through the Apple review process each time.
- flatline3 14y ago
  It's unlikely that the cost of the review system outweighs the costs involved in going non-native for most use cases.
marknutter 14y ago
Are you trolling? If you go native you have to write and maintain a different codebase for ever platform you want to support. With HTML5 you can update code without going through Apple's lengthy update process, and you can share that code across as many platforms as you like. HTML5 also allows you to tap into a much wider pool of developers.
- flatline3 14y ago
  None of what you covered provides any advantage whatsoever to your users. It's all about making web developers happy.
  - cluda01 14y ago
    I think that this is one of those instances where the needs of the company were prioritized over the needs of the user. Not to say this isn't uncommon in any industry, however, in prioritizing maintenance cost minimization they made the user experience markedly worse for the end user.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    In the case where you only have the resources to make an iOS version of your app, you certainly are thinking of your users when you use a cross-platform solution so that Android is supported.
    - duaneb 14y ago
      Perhaps, but the better thing to do would be to write native apps for both users.
- anuraj 14y ago
  Do you think it matters to a company with a substantial mobile user base - and tons of money? HTML5 is for cheapos.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    In Facebook's case, it wasn't about money, lord knows they had plenty of that. It was about being more agile. With HTML5 they could play with a lot of different views without having to push a monolithic update to their users every time. HTML5 works better for some apps than native languages do; for instance, I'll bet dimes to dollars you're consuming Hacker News via the web, not a native app.
- cageface 14y ago
pjmlp 14y ago
Agreed 100%! HTML is for documents, not Frankenstein coded applications.

by anuraj 14y ago

There is no excuse for using HTML5 when the native platform offers you so much more and the user base is substantial. Only cheapos try to get away with it. Web is dead, welcome to app economy!

kombine 14y ago

It's not that the web is dead, but the technology stack on the front end side of things is crappy. There's a lot of hype about front end development of course(yes I expect the downvoting by posting it here on HN), but it is not that the tools are superior, but rather because of the necessity of the web.

anuraj 14y ago
I agree .. what I meant when I said 'web is dead' is the new web is made of services accessed through apps. Crappy front end technology and mega monolith browser are no longer required.

ceejayoz 14y ago

> There is no excuse for using HTML5 when the native platform offers you so much more and the user base is substantial. Sure there is - the ability to push rapid updates to the UI, without needing to go through the Apple review process each time.

flatline3 14y ago
It's unlikely that the cost of the review system outweighs the costs involved in going non-native for most use cases.

marknutter 14y ago

Are you trolling? If you go native you have to write and maintain a different codebase for ever platform you want to support. With HTML5 you can update code without going through Apple's lengthy update process, and you can share that code across as many platforms as you like. HTML5 also allows you to tap into a much wider pool of developers.

flatline3 14y ago
None of what you covered provides any advantage whatsoever to your users. It's all about making web developers happy.
- cluda01 14y ago
  I think that this is one of those instances where the needs of the company were prioritized over the needs of the user. Not to say this isn't uncommon in any industry, however, in prioritizing maintenance cost minimization they made the user experience markedly worse for the end user.
- marknutter 14y ago
  In the case where you only have the resources to make an iOS version of your app, you certainly are thinking of your users when you use a cross-platform solution so that Android is supported.
  - duaneb 14y ago
    Perhaps, but the better thing to do would be to write native apps for both users.
anuraj 14y ago
Do you think it matters to a company with a substantial mobile user base - and tons of money? HTML5 is for cheapos.
- marknutter 14y ago
  In Facebook's case, it wasn't about money, lord knows they had plenty of that. It was about being more agile. With HTML5 they could play with a lot of different views without having to push a monolithic update to their users every time. HTML5 works better for some apps than native languages do; for instance, I'll bet dimes to dollars you're consuming Hacker News via the web, not a native app.
cageface 14y ago

pjmlp 14y ago

Agreed 100%! HTML is for documents, not Frankenstein coded applications.