3 ms·
What this article ignores is that the computer is always a multi-purpose-multi-tasking tool, while phones for the most part and by most people are used for one
by tblancpain 14y ago
What this article ignores is that the computer is always a multi-purpose-multi-tasking tool, while phones for the most part and by most people are used for one thing at a time.
There are notifications, but otherwise as long as you're happy doing what you're in an app you'll stay there. That's a big advantage for an organization like a newspaper, and an obvious reason to go for an app.
- tommorris 14y agoI don't see why that makes the case for native apps more compelling.
- tblancpain 14y agoIt helps the consumer because if it's a good app, it allows you to better focus on that one task you're after. Reading the news, for example. I haven't had any of the problems he discusses with the NYTimes app, for example. For the organization, the benefits of longer engagement are pretty obvious as well. He's right about a lot of bad developers (and clueless execs) producing really crappy apps. He's wrong if he thinks that a lot of the bigger brands are still at that stage.
- pedalpete 14y agoI am yet to see an improved "reading" experience in an app. It's words on a screen. The ability to innovate is very limited. Want swipe page turns ? That can be done in web. Scrolling? Zooming? Etc etc can all be done with a website. Apps have there place, but I don't think news readers are it.
- tblancpain 14y agoNot having the huge address header on the iPhone with Safari is already a huge improvement of the reading experience.