7 ms·

The official Basecamp iPhone app

57 points by illdave 14y ago

rodrigoavie 14y ago
I remember when they said the way to go was HTML5 and all that talk. Glad their changed their vision.
- alexobenauer 14y ago
  It's a hybrid app, views written in HTML5 & CSS3, and wrapped on the device. Navigation is native. (Source: the post)
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I assume he is referring to Basecamp Classic Mobile [1]. Reading the post, it seems they thought HTML5 was the "way to go" because they had more experience with the technology, not for any particular technological reasons. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile
  - kaolinite 14y ago
    Chances are that in a year or so, they'll release a completely native app. That seems to be the trend now - go HTML5 initially to get an app out fast, then create a native app later.
- jzimdars 14y ago
  All of the content screens in the app are still HTML5. Because of that direction, we now have a native experience on iOS AND a solid mobile experience in the browser. HTML5 still offers the greatest reach, a superior layout model and the fastest development. It's a myth that web views are inherently a poor experience.
bosky101 14y ago
From a friend I saw logging in, it seemed like the oauth webview screen (that 3rd party apps use to interact with the API) has been ditched for something native as well. Something 3rd party apps can never re-create.
- qrush 14y ago
  The login screen for the official app is a webview as well. Most of the app is!
bradtgmurray 14y ago
I wish they just put more effort into making their web interfaces more responsive. Trying to use Campfire from the browser on my Galaxy Nexus is nearly impossible.
- antidaily 14y ago
  Not sure if serious.
bobsy 14y ago
Looks good. Shame there is no mention of Android at all. The biggest thing I took away from this blog post was this. "NOTE: Basecamp for iPhone requires an account on the new Basecamp (released March 2012). Basecamp Classic is not supported." I wonder what % of users haven't switched over even after a year. I think this is a good lesson for anyone thinking about effectively launching a new product to replace one they already have. The company I work for did a similar thing about 15 months ago. We still have about 10% of clients on the old system. We offered free upgrades to get everyone over but some didn't want it. New platform has now diverged sufficiently away from the old one that there is no direct upgrade path any more. This has effectively left 10% of clients stranded. Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over. It causes some short term hassle and support costs but in the medium term really simplifies development work if old products are completely retired.
- kybernetyk 14y ago
  From my experience adoption of new versions is always pretty slow with 'normal' users. They don't care for new versions as long as the current version they're using gets the job done.
- jasonfried 14y ago
  There's no mention of Android because this is an announcement for the iPhone version. We'll be addressing Android at another time.
  - dave1619 14y ago
    That makes sense. I figure since most of the pages are web views, it wouldn't be that difficult to release an Android version when/if needed.
- mbesto 14y ago
  Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over. I actually think this is a ploy to get their users to convert. 37signals has a strong "we let our users outgrow us" stance, so what I read between the lines is that 37signals sees no hassle continuing to support the old system (it's massively profitable). Dually it gives a better justification for an up-sell to get people on to the new system. I think this strategy is brilliant.
tudorizer 14y ago
Simple, dumb questions: So what is the point of it being hybrid, actually? Speed of development? Multiple platforms?
- jasonfried 14y ago
  Both, and more. We're aiming to post a series of articles on Signal vs. Noise about the decisions we made.
  - tudorizer 14y ago
    I'd be curious about this topic, not because I'm pro or against this approach. I've worked on both sides of the spectrum (web app wrappers, full native and lately a hybrid, which is more complex than Basecamp) and it seems like a fine balance needs to be reached. You're "fortunate" that you keep the UI pretty slick and simple. And I say "fortunate", because I know this is actually a choice.
  - ryan_f 14y ago
    These will be very helpful to the mobile community. It's great to read about larger scale services and how they tackled mobile. It was great when LinkedIn shared about their new mobile app and the development efforts.
- rsinger9 14y ago
  Native views and web views are good at different things. Native is good for high fidelity interaction, animations, responding to gestures. However the native APIs are bad for designing "documents" -- that is, layouts where elements flow within a container and push each other around. That means that things that are extremely easy on the web can be painstaking in native UI without much upside. Web views have limited interactivity, but they have other advantages: * Faster iterations. You don't need to push a build when a webview changes. * Document-style layout, as mentioned above. * Higher density. We found it easier to show more information on the screen with HTML/CSS than the native controls. Looking at other apps out there makes me think it's an attribute of the medium, not just us. * No need to sync data or duplicate logic. Sending HTML down the pipe is simple. Finally yes, we get the multi-platform advantages because the web views are also served to people who hit the regular mobile web version of the app without any wrapper.
DASD 14y ago
Seems a bit funny since just last September they blogged their mobile version and "no app required." https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10 https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10 One of the reasons I recall this is that I saved this particular e-mail newsletter at the time. I thought it of particular interest they dedicated resources on making a mobile browser performant version and had eschewed a mobile application approach. So what has changed or did they feel a deficiency in that version?
- jasonfried 14y ago
  There's still no app required. The app is completely optional.
  - DASD 14y ago
    So as a confused customer, what option do you recommend and why are there two options if both are similar in function?
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Try both for a few minutes and make a decision?
    - rsinger9 14y ago
      The app is the best experience. If you don't have the app or it's not supported on your platform, then you have the regular mobile web views to fall back on.
LordIllidan 14y ago
What about a native iPad version?
- rsinger9 14y ago
  One step at a time.
CoachRufus87 14y ago
Worth noting: this was built using RubyMotion (http://www.rubymotion.com/ http://www.rubymotion.com/).
- cnp 14y ago
  I think this is the most exciting tech news this year. I really hope that this pushes RubyMotion further out into the mainstream. I've had phenomenal success with that toolchain.
- ryan_f 14y ago
  I am interested in hearing how much was in RubyMotion. I would have been more excited to hear the whole thing was. I am not knocking the architecture. They have proven to know what they are doing when it comes to development and business. I am just waiting to hear about bigger projects for RubyMotion.
marknutter 14y ago
So if they're using Rubymotion for their iOS hybrid app, I wonder if they'll use http://ruboto.org http://ruboto.org for their Android hybrid app?
tomkin 14y ago
"Eventually we came to the conclusion that we should stick with what we’re good at: web apps. We know the technologies well, we have a great development environment and workflow, we can control the release cycle, and everyone at 37signals can do the work. It’s what we already do, just on a smaller screen. We all loved our smaller screens so we were eager to dive in. Plus, since WebKit-based browsers were making their way to the webOS and Blackberry platforms too, our single web-app would eventually run on just about every popular smartphone platform.", Jason Fried, http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded startups soon? Let me be clear, I'm not out to troll 37signals. But here's the thing, if you claim a superior ideology, sell that ideology on paperback and then go against your own methodology, you're going to get some feedback. You can't claim that everyone is a troll, or a "cesspool" whenever people confront these ideas - especially when you're selling them for $.
- marknutter 14y ago
  You couldn't possibly have read the article. They took a hybrid approach, which means that the vast majority of the app is still written in html/css/javascript. "The page stacking behavior and navigation menus are native while the rest of the screens are web views." - straight from the article. So a more apt analogy than yours might be "we should expect 37signals to continue bootstrapping but also take a small loan from a bank to cover short term expenses".
  - tomkin 14y ago
    I did read the article. Both of them, actually. It was clear that most of the app is HTML5, CSS, JS. As originally stated in their previous post, they aren't keen on developing for multiple platforms natively. What they have released goes against the "write once, run anywhere" message that they've been selling for years. I'm quiet familiar with the tech stack they are developing on and so I know that while most is HTML5, there is definitely a development cost if they choose to go cross-platform. It's not as simple as you're alluding.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
daenney 14y ago
Interesting that it's launched within seven days of http://getcampapp.com/.. http://getcampapp.com/... There was even an item about it this 'morning' on HN.
dave1619 14y ago
I downloaded the iPhone app and tried it out. I'm actually quite impressed. The interactions are quite speedy and the app has a "native" feel to it. It also helps that the design of the app is quite nicely done. I've been a big proponent of full native apps on mobile when possible. But this has got me thinking that the hybrid approach can be a smart move when done right.

57 points by illdave 14y ago

rodrigoavie 14y ago

I remember when they said the way to go was HTML5 and all that talk. Glad their changed their vision.

alexobenauer 14y ago
It's a hybrid app, views written in HTML5 & CSS3, and wrapped on the device. Navigation is native. (Source: the post)
- randomdata 14y ago
  I assume he is referring to Basecamp Classic Mobile [1]. Reading the post, it seems they thought HTML5 was the "way to go" because they had more experience with the technology, not for any particular technological reasons. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile
- kaolinite 14y ago
  Chances are that in a year or so, they'll release a completely native app. That seems to be the trend now - go HTML5 initially to get an app out fast, then create a native app later.
jzimdars 14y ago
All of the content screens in the app are still HTML5. Because of that direction, we now have a native experience on iOS AND a solid mobile experience in the browser. HTML5 still offers the greatest reach, a superior layout model and the fastest development. It's a myth that web views are inherently a poor experience.

bosky101 14y ago

From a friend I saw logging in, it seemed like the oauth webview screen (that 3rd party apps use to interact with the API) has been ditched for something native as well. Something 3rd party apps can never re-create.

qrush 14y ago
The login screen for the official app is a webview as well. Most of the app is!

bradtgmurray 14y ago

I wish they just put more effort into making their web interfaces more responsive. Trying to use Campfire from the browser on my Galaxy Nexus is nearly impossible.

antidaily 14y ago
Not sure if serious.

bobsy 14y ago

Looks good. Shame there is no mention of Android at all. The biggest thing I took away from this blog post was this. "NOTE: Basecamp for iPhone requires an account on the new Basecamp (released March 2012). Basecamp Classic is not supported." I wonder what % of users haven't switched over even after a year. I think this is a good lesson for anyone thinking about effectively launching a new product to replace one they already have. The company I work for did a similar thing about 15 months ago. We still have about 10% of clients on the old system. We offered free upgrades to get everyone over but some didn't want it. New platform has now diverged sufficiently away from the old one that there is no direct upgrade path any more. This has effectively left 10% of clients stranded. Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over. It causes some short term hassle and support costs but in the medium term really simplifies development work if old products are completely retired.

kybernetyk 14y ago
From my experience adoption of new versions is always pretty slow with 'normal' users. They don't care for new versions as long as the current version they're using gets the job done.
jasonfried 14y ago
There's no mention of Android because this is an announcement for the iPhone version. We'll be addressing Android at another time.
- dave1619 14y ago
  That makes sense. I figure since most of the pages are web views, it wouldn't be that difficult to release an Android version when/if needed.
mbesto 14y ago
Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over. I actually think this is a ploy to get their users to convert. 37signals has a strong "we let our users outgrow us" stance, so what I read between the lines is that 37signals sees no hassle continuing to support the old system (it's massively profitable). Dually it gives a better justification for an up-sell to get people on to the new system. I think this strategy is brilliant.

tudorizer 14y ago

Simple, dumb questions: So what is the point of it being hybrid, actually? Speed of development? Multiple platforms?

jasonfried 14y ago
Both, and more. We're aiming to post a series of articles on Signal vs. Noise about the decisions we made.
- tudorizer 14y ago
  I'd be curious about this topic, not because I'm pro or against this approach. I've worked on both sides of the spectrum (web app wrappers, full native and lately a hybrid, which is more complex than Basecamp) and it seems like a fine balance needs to be reached. You're "fortunate" that you keep the UI pretty slick and simple. And I say "fortunate", because I know this is actually a choice.
- ryan_f 14y ago
  These will be very helpful to the mobile community. It's great to read about larger scale services and how they tackled mobile. It was great when LinkedIn shared about their new mobile app and the development efforts.
rsinger9 14y ago
Native views and web views are good at different things. Native is good for high fidelity interaction, animations, responding to gestures. However the native APIs are bad for designing "documents" -- that is, layouts where elements flow within a container and push each other around. That means that things that are extremely easy on the web can be painstaking in native UI without much upside. Web views have limited interactivity, but they have other advantages: * Faster iterations. You don't need to push a build when a webview changes. * Document-style layout, as mentioned above. * Higher density. We found it easier to show more information on the screen with HTML/CSS than the native controls. Looking at other apps out there makes me think it's an attribute of the medium, not just us. * No need to sync data or duplicate logic. Sending HTML down the pipe is simple. Finally yes, we get the multi-platform advantages because the web views are also served to people who hit the regular mobile web version of the app without any wrapper.

DASD 14y ago

Seems a bit funny since just last September they blogged their mobile version and "no app required." https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10 https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10 One of the reasons I recall this is that I saved this particular e-mail newsletter at the time. I thought it of particular interest they dedicated resources on making a mobile browser performant version and had eschewed a mobile application approach. So what has changed or did they feel a deficiency in that version?

jasonfried 14y ago
There's still no app required. The app is completely optional.
- DASD 14y ago
  So as a confused customer, what option do you recommend and why are there two options if both are similar in function?
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Try both for a few minutes and make a decision?
  - rsinger9 14y ago
    The app is the best experience. If you don't have the app or it's not supported on your platform, then you have the regular mobile web views to fall back on.

LordIllidan 14y ago

What about a native iPad version?

rsinger9 14y ago
One step at a time.

CoachRufus87 14y ago

Worth noting: this was built using RubyMotion (http://www.rubymotion.com/ http://www.rubymotion.com/).

cnp 14y ago
I think this is the most exciting tech news this year. I really hope that this pushes RubyMotion further out into the mainstream. I've had phenomenal success with that toolchain.
ryan_f 14y ago
I am interested in hearing how much was in RubyMotion. I would have been more excited to hear the whole thing was. I am not knocking the architecture. They have proven to know what they are doing when it comes to development and business. I am just waiting to hear about bigger projects for RubyMotion.

marknutter 14y ago

So if they're using Rubymotion for their iOS hybrid app, I wonder if they'll use http://ruboto.org http://ruboto.org for their Android hybrid app?

tomkin 14y ago

"Eventually we came to the conclusion that we should stick with what we’re good at: web apps. We know the technologies well, we have a great development environment and workflow, we can control the release cycle, and everyone at 37signals can do the work. It’s what we already do, just on a smaller screen. We all loved our smaller screens so we were eager to dive in. Plus, since WebKit-based browsers were making their way to the webOS and Blackberry platforms too, our single web-app would eventually run on just about every popular smartphone platform.", Jason Fried, http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded startups soon? Let me be clear, I'm not out to troll 37signals. But here's the thing, if you claim a superior ideology, sell that ideology on paperback and then go against your own methodology, you're going to get some feedback. You can't claim that everyone is a troll, or a "cesspool" whenever people confront these ideas - especially when you're selling them for $.

marknutter 14y ago
You couldn't possibly have read the article. They took a hybrid approach, which means that the vast majority of the app is still written in html/css/javascript. "The page stacking behavior and navigation menus are native while the rest of the screens are web views." - straight from the article. So a more apt analogy than yours might be "we should expect 37signals to continue bootstrapping but also take a small loan from a bank to cover short term expenses".
- tomkin 14y ago
  I did read the article. Both of them, actually. It was clear that most of the app is HTML5, CSS, JS. As originally stated in their previous post, they aren't keen on developing for multiple platforms natively. What they have released goes against the "write once, run anywhere" message that they've been selling for years. I'm quiet familiar with the tech stack they are developing on and so I know that while most is HTML5, there is definitely a development cost if they choose to go cross-platform. It's not as simple as you're alluding.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

daenney 14y ago

Interesting that it's launched within seven days of http://getcampapp.com/.. http://getcampapp.com/... There was even an item about it this 'morning' on HN.

dave1619 14y ago

I downloaded the iPhone app and tried it out. I'm actually quite impressed. The interactions are quite speedy and the app has a "native" feel to it. It also helps that the design of the app is quite nicely done. I've been a big proponent of full native apps on mobile when possible. But this has got me thinking that the hybrid approach can be a smart move when done right.