4 ms·

I don't think it's just discoverability though. I think the main question is if mobile web applications will be able to match native on both quality and perfor

I don't think it's just discoverability though. I think the main question is if mobile web applications will be able to match native on both quality and performance. Facebook attempted this and failed badly, but that doesn't mean it can't happen or that native will always have an edge. If native does continue to have an edge though then I think web has an uphill battle.

Joeri 13y ago
You can remove the word mobile. Web apps are still heavily inferior to native desktop apps. The answer to 'why mobile web apps?' is the same answer as to 'why desktop web apps?'
- fossuser 13y ago
  I generally agree to this, but at least with mobile you carry your phone with you all the time. I could see the benefit of a web interface on any machine you use rather than having to have your laptop with you for the desktop app. Though I guess I usually have my laptop with me anyway.
- MoosePlissken 13y ago
  Depends on your definition of inferior. I can count the number of desktop apps that I use on a daily basis on one hand, and they're all development tools. I have more than twice that number of pinned tabs in my browser that are open at all times.
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    Are those pinned tabs all running applications or merely displaying information (websites)? Are you sure the ones running apps would not run better were they written as a native/desktop version? Are the apps trivial (e.g. to-do lists)? There's a lot of context you left out.
    - MoosePlissken 13y ago
      Some are just websites, but I would say many of them are full blown apps: Gmail - email client Mog - Music player Google Voice / MightyText - Messaging TweetDeck - Twitter client Confluence - Team wiki Trello - Organizational tool Toggl - Time tracking Bitbucket/Github (I suppose you could debate that these are just websites) Google Drive - Document editing and storage Would these run better as native apps? Probably, if you're just talking about raw performance. However, I frequently jump between OSX, Windows, and Linux machines. When I open Chrome on any of these devices I can pick up right where I left off. Could I say the same with a native app? Probably not. For me, the performance of the web version of these apps is good enough, so cross platform compatibility becomes more important than raw power. That's what I meant when I said it depends on your definition of inferior. I don't think mobile hardware or mobile browsers are quite there yet. But I don't see any reason why they won't eventually get to a point where they're "good enough" for people like myself, at which point other factors beyond raw performance will become more important.
bad_user 13y ago
On Facebook, I remember a time when the native app was horrible on Android. In many ways it still is - it requires too many permissions and the list is growing. Recently they're asking for access to my SMS messages and in Android 4.3 I had a bug with my Nexus 4 in regards to location services as the Wifi-network provider was draining my battery and so I had to disable it, so Facebook's app was still requiring it, activating the GPS on each opening of the app and there was no way to turn that off, unless I turned the GPS off globally. Granted this is also a failure of Android's permissions system, but ... The mobile web interface was and is still there. It doesn't matter if the mobile platform is new or old, it doesn't matter if Facebook's app was developed (and approved) for that platform, the web interface is there and it works, the only requirement being for the user to have a decent JS-enabled browser. People view Facebook's investment in their mobile web interface as a failure. I view it as competitive advantage.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  I use the app Tinfoil for Facebook instead of the official one. It's basically a site browser. Much faster and less intrusive.
- fossuser 13y ago
  I suppose in your case you're choosing between two bad options. The iOS app is an example of how much better a native app can be from the web app - and the new paper app even more so. I remember the android one being terrible when I had android phones a couple years ago - but I thought that was because it was basically a wrapper around a web app.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    You kind of missed the point. What if history repeats itself? What if iOS will in the end fail in the marketplace, reducing its share to a single digit? What if Apple continues against all odds to develop and support it, like it did with the Mac OS? What if you'll still use it? Wouldn't you be happy then that there's a web interface available? And from a developer's perspective - you could say that you want to target iOS users first. That may work out well for you. However, for example, I never, ever tried Instagram because when Instagram was all the rage, it wasn't available for the platform(s) that I'm using. And later the momentum for me was gone. That's a lost opportunity. In the end, it may work out well for the developer - however, considering that iOS's marketshare is minuscule compared to the people that have access to web browsers, I personally don't see how you can build the next Google or Twitter or Facebook by not targeting the web first. For another example of companies that failed to do this - WhatsApp Messenger will probably die or get acquired, because Facebook is eating its launch, as Facebook works everywhere and when I send a message to my wife, she either reads it on her phone, or in the browser tab that she keeps open when on her laptop. FB's messaging works on my iPad too, whereas WhatsApp doesn't because WhatsApp is identifying users by their phone number.
marknutter 13y ago
Facebook was just a bit too early when trying to make html5 work on smart phones. If they were to make the attempt again today it would probably successful.
- grayrest 13y ago
  React [1] batches writes to the DOM automagically, which was the main problem with the original app that prompted the FB post. Sencha did a version that worked fine with then-current hardware/browsers. [1] http://facebook.github.io/react/ http://facebook.github.io/react/ It's also been a couple years. Mobile processor perf is better and JS engines are faster.

Joeri 13y ago

You can remove the word mobile. Web apps are still heavily inferior to native desktop apps. The answer to 'why mobile web apps?' is the same answer as to 'why desktop web apps?'

fossuser 13y ago
I generally agree to this, but at least with mobile you carry your phone with you all the time. I could see the benefit of a web interface on any machine you use rather than having to have your laptop with you for the desktop app. Though I guess I usually have my laptop with me anyway.
MoosePlissken 13y ago
Depends on your definition of inferior. I can count the number of desktop apps that I use on a daily basis on one hand, and they're all development tools. I have more than twice that number of pinned tabs in my browser that are open at all times.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  Are those pinned tabs all running applications or merely displaying information (websites)? Are you sure the ones running apps would not run better were they written as a native/desktop version? Are the apps trivial (e.g. to-do lists)? There's a lot of context you left out.
  - MoosePlissken 13y ago
    Some are just websites, but I would say many of them are full blown apps: Gmail - email client Mog - Music player Google Voice / MightyText - Messaging TweetDeck - Twitter client Confluence - Team wiki Trello - Organizational tool Toggl - Time tracking Bitbucket/Github (I suppose you could debate that these are just websites) Google Drive - Document editing and storage Would these run better as native apps? Probably, if you're just talking about raw performance. However, I frequently jump between OSX, Windows, and Linux machines. When I open Chrome on any of these devices I can pick up right where I left off. Could I say the same with a native app? Probably not. For me, the performance of the web version of these apps is good enough, so cross platform compatibility becomes more important than raw power. That's what I meant when I said it depends on your definition of inferior. I don't think mobile hardware or mobile browsers are quite there yet. But I don't see any reason why they won't eventually get to a point where they're "good enough" for people like myself, at which point other factors beyond raw performance will become more important.

bad_user 13y ago

On Facebook, I remember a time when the native app was horrible on Android. In many ways it still is - it requires too many permissions and the list is growing. Recently they're asking for access to my SMS messages and in Android 4.3 I had a bug with my Nexus 4 in regards to location services as the Wifi-network provider was draining my battery and so I had to disable it, so Facebook's app was still requiring it, activating the GPS on each opening of the app and there was no way to turn that off, unless I turned the GPS off globally. Granted this is also a failure of Android's permissions system, but ... The mobile web interface was and is still there. It doesn't matter if the mobile platform is new or old, it doesn't matter if Facebook's app was developed (and approved) for that platform, the web interface is there and it works, the only requirement being for the user to have a decent JS-enabled browser. People view Facebook's investment in their mobile web interface as a failure. I view it as competitive advantage.

w1ntermute 13y ago
I use the app Tinfoil for Facebook instead of the official one. It's basically a site browser. Much faster and less intrusive.
fossuser 13y ago
I suppose in your case you're choosing between two bad options. The iOS app is an example of how much better a native app can be from the web app - and the new paper app even more so. I remember the android one being terrible when I had android phones a couple years ago - but I thought that was because it was basically a wrapper around a web app.
- bad_user 13y ago
  You kind of missed the point. What if history repeats itself? What if iOS will in the end fail in the marketplace, reducing its share to a single digit? What if Apple continues against all odds to develop and support it, like it did with the Mac OS? What if you'll still use it? Wouldn't you be happy then that there's a web interface available? And from a developer's perspective - you could say that you want to target iOS users first. That may work out well for you. However, for example, I never, ever tried Instagram because when Instagram was all the rage, it wasn't available for the platform(s) that I'm using. And later the momentum for me was gone. That's a lost opportunity. In the end, it may work out well for the developer - however, considering that iOS's marketshare is minuscule compared to the people that have access to web browsers, I personally don't see how you can build the next Google or Twitter or Facebook by not targeting the web first. For another example of companies that failed to do this - WhatsApp Messenger will probably die or get acquired, because Facebook is eating its launch, as Facebook works everywhere and when I send a message to my wife, she either reads it on her phone, or in the browser tab that she keeps open when on her laptop. FB's messaging works on my iPad too, whereas WhatsApp doesn't because WhatsApp is identifying users by their phone number.

marknutter 13y ago

Facebook was just a bit too early when trying to make html5 work on smart phones. If they were to make the attempt again today it would probably successful.

grayrest 13y ago
React [1] batches writes to the DOM automagically, which was the main problem with the original app that prompted the FB post. Sencha did a version that worked fine with then-current hardware/browsers. [1] http://facebook.github.io/react/ http://facebook.github.io/react/ It's also been a couple years. Mobile processor perf is better and JS engines are faster.