5 ms·

What alternative would you suggest if you want an application that runs on: iPhone, Android, Mac, and Windows? Linux aside. Also, depending on which technologi

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.
      - ericmay 2y ago
        I think there are some of us who would just rather go without than accept bad versions of things just because they're available. When I got an Apple Watch a long time ago I had the Messages app turned on. I quickly discovered that it sucked and I'd rather just send a message from my laptop or phone. I disabled the app, because sure it's available, but it sucks. This is part of what commoditization does. We can't have the real thing and so we accept cheap, subpar substitutes. When you look around at things falling apart, the commoditization of those things is precisely why.

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.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      I think there are some of us who would just rather go without than accept bad versions of things just because they're available. When I got an Apple Watch a long time ago I had the Messages app turned on. I quickly discovered that it sucked and I'd rather just send a message from my laptop or phone. I disabled the app, because sure it's available, but it sucks. This is part of what commoditization does. We can't have the real thing and so we accept cheap, subpar substitutes. When you look around at things falling apart, the commoditization of those things is precisely why.