4 ms·

App-pocalypse Now

54 points by joeyespo 13y ago

therobot24 13y ago
Surprised HN hasn't taken this down - in the time i've browsed through this site anything that goes against monetizing a user is blasphemy. Given that most of HN are developers of some sort I gave the benefit of the doubt, this is how they make their money blah blah blah. More to the point, this article organizes all my complaints and then some. Agree with it or not, whenever I see a new start-up or app or whatever I immediately think, "I don't want to give you $1.99, even if I pay more for chips that go stale." Too much competition makes me very untrustworthy to buy anything.
- rrradical 13y ago
  I think your point about this audience is a fair one (and I myself make games for iOS), but I have trouble understanding the complaints. My attempt to summarize: - Charging up front won't work (some 2.99 apps are terrible therefore this one might be also) - Free w/IAP for features are annoying because you can never truly buy the whole app - Free is scary because of the way companies monetize free users Each of those is true individually, but that doesn't leave a lot of options for a developer. I don't the market is terrible because developers are so good at taking advantage of people. Rather, customers are willing to choose low quality apps over high quality apps if they are marginally cheaper.
  - therobot24 13y ago
    Yea it's something of an impossible situation, and that really sucks. I would gladly give money to something that would enrich my life somehow, but trudging through the crap isn't worth it. Most of the time is wasted trying to figure out exactly what it is i'm looking for, as opposed to looking for that one app that fits my need.
gtCameron 13y ago
Previous discussion from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7296178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7296178
- rkuykendall-com 13y ago
  Thank you. I was getting major Deja-Vu.
- joeyespo 13y ago
  Huh. Seems last week's discussion links to a .html URL which immediately redirects. Thanks!
Oculus 13y ago
I find it interesting that Ghost, the blogging platform underneath Coding Horror, can't handle HN Front Page. The text on the webpage is blank for me.
brudgers 13y ago
Why are apps so crappy? Well the Koolaid is so potent it took someone as sophisticated as Jeff Atwood four fucking years to realize that the model was AOL keyword: https://news.ycombinator.com Hopefully it won't take for more years for people like him to realize that the reason we have app stores is that they are easier to enforce than forbidding users to install alternate browsers on the OS - in part as blowback from all the litigation against Microsoft that it's competitors championed in the early days of the web.
- soup10 13y ago
  I partially disagree, the main reason we have app stores is because it was a model that worked fairly well for the iPhone and everyone else badly copied it. The lockin effect is an ancillary benefit.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Also for the billions of dollars it funneled into Apple via distribution lock in.
peterhunt 13y ago
Until javascript can animate at a consistent 60 fps in mobile browsers, the web will continue to have its ass deservedly kicked.
- aboodman 13y ago
  I don't really believe that this is the issue. Developers are dying for a cross-platform solution for mobile development. If one existed that had complete parity with existing mobile platforms (including integration with OS and distribution model), except with current mobile web's performance, you really think that most developers would continue to just do everything twice?
  - austinz 13y ago
    I'm really not sure I want to see the day that Javascript webapps have the same level of access to system resources (camera, microphone, address book) that native apps now have. Even if the OS asks the user for permissions. Especially considering how broken the permission systems on both major mobile platforms are.
  - peterhunt 13y ago
    PhoneGap is exactly this. The problem is that recognizing touch gestures and animating them in the browser is a non-starter for almost all applications today. If the browser reliably gave JS low-level touch events and animated at 60fps almost all of these problems would go away.
- nwienert 13y ago
  React seems to show some promise with this[1][2] [1] http://vimeo.com/79659941 http://vimeo.com/79659941 [2] https://github.com/petehunt/react-touch https://github.com/petehunt/react-touch
austinz 13y ago
Anyone remember 2007? Apple's 'web apps are good enough' stance and everyone clamoring for a native SDK? Seems like things have gone full circle.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  The existence of shit-apps does not in any way suggest that a native SDK is unnecessary or inferior.
  - austinz 13y ago
    Of course it doesn't. I'm firmly in the native camp, and I honestly didn't find this article convincing. I'll believe that mobile webapps are as performant, secure, and capable as native apps when I see it happening on a regular basis.
BWStearns 13y ago
The vast majority of apps that are not worth the bandwidth to install are basically mobile versions of the parent site with better data tracking. I wouldn't be surprised to see a browser-like umbrella app appear that allowed for cross platform shit-app development where the native data tracking features were supported in that app and exposed as a standardized API for the second-layer apps. It wouldn't improve the quality of "Download our app!"-apps, but it would at the very least standardize them. I know that there are cross-platform development efforts now, but I'm thinking something more limited and targeted. Also, wrt therobot24, Atwood doesn't express issue with monetizing. Rather, with the information asymmetry that exists in app stores you must gamble the $0.99-3.99 to see whether or not it was worth it. When you do, you're more than likely to find out that the app is shit and you've also handed over a bunch of your data anyways.
- therobot24 13y ago
  i only brought up monetizing because it's the core issue that causes said gamble - i understand that money needs to be made in order to ensure quality, but because of it i've also lost all trust over any app or startup at a first glance
archagon 13y ago
Personally, I appreciate that each mobile platform has its own look and feel, design cues, etc. It's what makes using iOS and OSX so nice, at least for me. (But this applies more to offline apps, since web-centric apps like Facebook will look similar on every platform. And I agree that apps for every website is a crappy way to go forward.)

54 points by joeyespo 13y ago

Surprised HN hasn't taken this down - in the time i've browsed through this site anything that goes against monetizing a user is blasphemy. Given that most of HN are developers of some sort I gave the benefit of the doubt, this is how they make their money blah blah blah. More to the point, this article organizes all my complaints and then some. Agree with it or not, whenever I see a new start-up or app or whatever I immediately think, "I don't want to give you $1.99, even if I pay more for chips that go stale." Too much competition makes me very untrustworthy to buy anything.

rrradical 13y ago
I think your point about this audience is a fair one (and I myself make games for iOS), but I have trouble understanding the complaints. My attempt to summarize: - Charging up front won't work (some 2.99 apps are terrible therefore this one might be also) - Free w/IAP for features are annoying because you can never truly buy the whole app - Free is scary because of the way companies monetize free users Each of those is true individually, but that doesn't leave a lot of options for a developer. I don't the market is terrible because developers are so good at taking advantage of people. Rather, customers are willing to choose low quality apps over high quality apps if they are marginally cheaper.
- therobot24 13y ago
  Yea it's something of an impossible situation, and that really sucks. I would gladly give money to something that would enrich my life somehow, but trudging through the crap isn't worth it. Most of the time is wasted trying to figure out exactly what it is i'm looking for, as opposed to looking for that one app that fits my need.

gtCameron 13y ago

Previous discussion from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7296178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7296178

rkuykendall-com 13y ago
Thank you. I was getting major Deja-Vu.
joeyespo 13y ago
Huh. Seems last week's discussion links to a .html URL which immediately redirects. Thanks!

Oculus 13y ago

I find it interesting that Ghost, the blogging platform underneath Coding Horror, can't handle HN Front Page. The text on the webpage is blank for me.

brudgers 13y ago

Why are apps so crappy? Well the Koolaid is so potent it took someone as sophisticated as Jeff Atwood four fucking years to realize that the model was AOL keyword: https://news.ycombinator.com Hopefully it won't take for more years for people like him to realize that the reason we have app stores is that they are easier to enforce than forbidding users to install alternate browsers on the OS - in part as blowback from all the litigation against Microsoft that it's competitors championed in the early days of the web.

soup10 13y ago
I partially disagree, the main reason we have app stores is because it was a model that worked fairly well for the iPhone and everyone else badly copied it. The lockin effect is an ancillary benefit.
- dmix 13y ago
  Also for the billions of dollars it funneled into Apple via distribution lock in.

peterhunt 13y ago

Until javascript can animate at a consistent 60 fps in mobile browsers, the web will continue to have its ass deservedly kicked.

aboodman 13y ago
I don't really believe that this is the issue. Developers are dying for a cross-platform solution for mobile development. If one existed that had complete parity with existing mobile platforms (including integration with OS and distribution model), except with current mobile web's performance, you really think that most developers would continue to just do everything twice?
- austinz 13y ago
  I'm really not sure I want to see the day that Javascript webapps have the same level of access to system resources (camera, microphone, address book) that native apps now have. Even if the OS asks the user for permissions. Especially considering how broken the permission systems on both major mobile platforms are.
- peterhunt 13y ago
  PhoneGap is exactly this. The problem is that recognizing touch gestures and animating them in the browser is a non-starter for almost all applications today. If the browser reliably gave JS low-level touch events and animated at 60fps almost all of these problems would go away.
nwienert 13y ago
React seems to show some promise with this[1][2] [1] http://vimeo.com/79659941 http://vimeo.com/79659941 [2] https://github.com/petehunt/react-touch https://github.com/petehunt/react-touch

austinz 13y ago

Anyone remember 2007? Apple's 'web apps are good enough' stance and everyone clamoring for a native SDK? Seems like things have gone full circle.

jjoonathan 13y ago
The existence of shit-apps does not in any way suggest that a native SDK is unnecessary or inferior.
- austinz 13y ago
  Of course it doesn't. I'm firmly in the native camp, and I honestly didn't find this article convincing. I'll believe that mobile webapps are as performant, secure, and capable as native apps when I see it happening on a regular basis.

BWStearns 13y ago

The vast majority of apps that are not worth the bandwidth to install are basically mobile versions of the parent site with better data tracking. I wouldn't be surprised to see a browser-like umbrella app appear that allowed for cross platform shit-app development where the native data tracking features were supported in that app and exposed as a standardized API for the second-layer apps. It wouldn't improve the quality of "Download our app!"-apps, but it would at the very least standardize them. I know that there are cross-platform development efforts now, but I'm thinking something more limited and targeted. Also, wrt therobot24, Atwood doesn't express issue with monetizing. Rather, with the information asymmetry that exists in app stores you must gamble the $0.99-3.99 to see whether or not it was worth it. When you do, you're more than likely to find out that the app is shit and you've also handed over a bunch of your data anyways.

therobot24 13y ago
i only brought up monetizing because it's the core issue that causes said gamble - i understand that money needs to be made in order to ensure quality, but because of it i've also lost all trust over any app or startup at a first glance

archagon 13y ago

Personally, I appreciate that each mobile platform has its own look and feel, design cues, etc. It's what makes using iOS and OSX so nice, at least for me. (But this applies more to offline apps, since web-centric apps like Facebook will look similar on every platform. And I agree that apps for every website is a crappy way to go forward.)