2 ms·

Web apps run on everything. If it's good enough for your needs, just do that.

ericmay 2y ago
> Web apps run on everything. If you're building something like Facebook where you want your site on everything from a smart watch to a desktop PC to a car that makes sense to me. But aside from that, why is making sure your application can run on "everything" a goal? It kind of reminds me of when someone makes a new physical product, and wants to make sure it's carried at every retailer, and usually when that happens the quality of the product suffers in a race toward the bottom. The best producers of goods tend to not follow this model, however.
- rchaud 2y ago
  Because it's an enormous waste of time writing code, doing QA and managing updates for multiple different platforms. Web apps inside a headless Chromium container is how many many "mobile apps" are built these days.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    It's also an enormous waste of time building really great products when you can cut corners and sell things very cheaply, maybe even create things like single-use disposable t-shirts. Why is this any different? I guess you can argue that web apps are superior or on-par with something like maybe an iOS specific app, but I'm not sure that's true. Many of the apps I've come across perform best when they're built for the platform they operate on. I can usually (not always) tell when I'm using a web app because the experience kind of sucks. But even if they're on par, let's say you can run your app everywhere including a smart watch - is that really the goal?
- jollyllama 2y ago
  What alternative would you suggest if you want an application that runs on: iPhone, Android, Mac, and Windows? Linux aside. Also, depending on which technologies you choose, your web application will be much more stable (i.e. requiring less updates of dependencies) than most alternatives.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    > What alternative would you suggest if you want an application that runs on: iPhone, Android, Mac, and Windows? Linux aside. None - I'm suggesting we don't need to write software that runs on every device. Commoditization generally sucks. Why get a nice laptop for work or play when you can just use Gamepass and use a corporate provided Remote Desktop? Web apps are the same.
    - jollyllama 2y ago
      > Commoditization generally sucks. Only for the thing being commoditized. It's a feature for the one doing the commoditizing. I can see why if you care about the Quality of the application itself more than the user experience, this is a concern, and I suppose it all comes down to who you define as your "users" - the people on the targeted platform vs. a more broad selection of platforms.
      - ericmay 2y ago
        > I can see why if you care about the Quality of the application itself more than the user experience, this is a concern This doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what point you are trying to get across? As you commoditize an application the quality and user experience tends to go down. I wouldn't think that if you really care about the quality of an application that it would imply that the user experience would be less favorable - if anything it would be a better experience? As an example take a look at a game like Civilization. You can see that the product is being commoditized to fit as many platforms as possible, but as the game becomes commoditized what happens is the quality of the game for the original audience (PC users) degrades. It's great for 2k Studios, more money for them, but is it great for users? Probably not. Even if more users now have access to the game, it's a worse experience for the original audience (core users) and the commodity users (Netflix for example...) have a subpar experience too.
        jollyllama 2y ago
        > As you commoditize an application the quality and user experience tends to go down Think in a broader sense. My user experience is better if I can use the application on the device that I have than if I can't.

> Web apps run on everything. If you're building something like Facebook where you want your site on everything from a smart watch to a desktop PC to a car that makes sense to me. But aside from that, why is making sure your application can run on "everything" a goal? It kind of reminds me of when someone makes a new physical product, and wants to make sure it's carried at every retailer, and usually when that happens the quality of the product suffers in a race toward the bottom. The best producers of goods tend to not follow this model, however.

rchaud 2y ago
Because it's an enormous waste of time writing code, doing QA and managing updates for multiple different platforms. Web apps inside a headless Chromium container is how many many "mobile apps" are built these days.
- ericmay 2y ago
  It's also an enormous waste of time building really great products when you can cut corners and sell things very cheaply, maybe even create things like single-use disposable t-shirts. Why is this any different? I guess you can argue that web apps are superior or on-par with something like maybe an iOS specific app, but I'm not sure that's true. Many of the apps I've come across perform best when they're built for the platform they operate on. I can usually (not always) tell when I'm using a web app because the experience kind of sucks. But even if they're on par, let's say you can run your app everywhere including a smart watch - is that really the goal?
jollyllama 2y ago
What alternative would you suggest if you want an application that runs on: iPhone, Android, Mac, and Windows? Linux aside. Also, depending on which technologies you choose, your web application will be much more stable (i.e. requiring less updates of dependencies) than most alternatives.
- ericmay 2y ago
  > What alternative would you suggest if you want an application that runs on: iPhone, Android, Mac, and Windows? Linux aside. None - I'm suggesting we don't need to write software that runs on every device. Commoditization generally sucks. Why get a nice laptop for work or play when you can just use Gamepass and use a corporate provided Remote Desktop? Web apps are the same.
  - jollyllama 2y ago
    > Commoditization generally sucks. Only for the thing being commoditized. It's a feature for the one doing the commoditizing. I can see why if you care about the Quality of the application itself more than the user experience, this is a concern, and I suppose it all comes down to who you define as your "users" - the people on the targeted platform vs. a more broad selection of platforms.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      > I can see why if you care about the Quality of the application itself more than the user experience, this is a concern This doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what point you are trying to get across? As you commoditize an application the quality and user experience tends to go down. I wouldn't think that if you really care about the quality of an application that it would imply that the user experience would be less favorable - if anything it would be a better experience? As an example take a look at a game like Civilization. You can see that the product is being commoditized to fit as many platforms as possible, but as the game becomes commoditized what happens is the quality of the game for the original audience (PC users) degrades. It's great for 2k Studios, more money for them, but is it great for users? Probably not. Even if more users now have access to the game, it's a worse experience for the original audience (core users) and the commodity users (Netflix for example...) have a subpar experience too.
      - jollyllama 2y ago
        > As you commoditize an application the quality and user experience tends to go down Think in a broader sense. My user experience is better if I can use the application on the device that I have than if I can't.