3 ms·

What about Gopher? FTP? Usenet? AOL? WAP? HTTP/HTML is just another way of consuming the content, but the justification for using it over other mediums is that

by sgrove 11y ago

What about Gopher? FTP? Usenet? AOL? WAP? HTTP/HTML is just another way of consuming the content, but the justification for using it over other mediums is that usage is high enough. If it falls below a certain threshold, then it makes sense to throw it out, just like the other low-performing mediums. Although walled-garden reasoning may also play a factor, a simple market-driven analysis would be sufficient in many cases to warrant the decision to drop HTML. There are some big social media companies whose mobile traffic so far outstrips their web-usage, that they consider from time to time dropping the html frontend. It seems inconceivable to us, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

wpietri 11y ago
Not quite. Absolute traffic levels don't matter. The only time it makes sense to throw it out, as the parent comment suggested, is if the maintenance costs exceed the benefits. Even if the usage is low compared to mobile, it only makes sense to stop if it's a long-term net negative. Personally, this makes me suspect bad architecture. If they've got well-factored APIs, the additional cost of maintaining a modest web presence should be pretty low. From what they describe, mobile is now somewhere between 40 and 60% of their traffic. Even if they were pretty sure that the trend to mobile would continue, why wouldn't they just hedge their bets by investing less in the HTML front end until the web traffic is really negligible? Few people use faxes anymore, but a lot of businesses still publish fax numbers just in case. Assuming that this isn't purely internal politics, then my best guess is that they have a lot of terrible web code. Somebody saying, "Mobile is the one and only future! Look, shiny future!" gives people a chance to declare bankruptcy on a lot of technical debt while appearing as forward-thinking leaders, rather than bozos who made a giant mess.
- captn3m0 11y ago
  Yes, exactly. Any CEO worth his salt would know to hedge his bets and stay on a platform till its already dead. That is what Stephen Elop taught everyone. I do think that some amount of bad architecture is involved, but flipkart does have a lot of money, and a lot of good engineers. They even have cool stuff on github [0], which needs good people. They have likely fixed their architecture issues by now. Flipkart has money, and lots of it (current valuation is $11 billion). There is absolutely no way that they are considering this on a cost-analysis basis.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    The Nokia analogy bears approximately no relationship to this situation. Nokia was a platform company. Flipkart is just using other people's platforms, ones that will continue to exist independent of their efforts. Your theory that people with lots of money and stuff on Github have no architectural problems does not match my experience. Also, I like you using the web to tell me the web is dead. Do go on.
r00fus 11y ago
No, the justification for HTTP/HTML is that the client required to use these platforms covers almost your entire addressable market.

by sgrove 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

Not quite. Absolute traffic levels don't matter. The only time it makes sense to throw it out, as the parent comment suggested, is if the maintenance costs exceed the benefits. Even if the usage is low compared to mobile, it only makes sense to stop if it's a long-term net negative. Personally, this makes me suspect bad architecture. If they've got well-factored APIs, the additional cost of maintaining a modest web presence should be pretty low. From what they describe, mobile is now somewhere between 40 and 60% of their traffic. Even if they were pretty sure that the trend to mobile would continue, why wouldn't they just hedge their bets by investing less in the HTML front end until the web traffic is really negligible? Few people use faxes anymore, but a lot of businesses still publish fax numbers just in case. Assuming that this isn't purely internal politics, then my best guess is that they have a lot of terrible web code. Somebody saying, "Mobile is the one and only future! Look, shiny future!" gives people a chance to declare bankruptcy on a lot of technical debt while appearing as forward-thinking leaders, rather than bozos who made a giant mess.

captn3m0 11y ago
Yes, exactly. Any CEO worth his salt would know to hedge his bets and stay on a platform till its already dead. That is what Stephen Elop taught everyone. I do think that some amount of bad architecture is involved, but flipkart does have a lot of money, and a lot of good engineers. They even have cool stuff on github [0], which needs good people. They have likely fixed their architecture issues by now. Flipkart has money, and lots of it (current valuation is $11 billion). There is absolutely no way that they are considering this on a cost-analysis basis.
- wpietri 11y ago
  The Nokia analogy bears approximately no relationship to this situation. Nokia was a platform company. Flipkart is just using other people's platforms, ones that will continue to exist independent of their efforts. Your theory that people with lots of money and stuff on Github have no architectural problems does not match my experience. Also, I like you using the web to tell me the web is dead. Do go on.

r00fus 11y ago

No, the justification for HTTP/HTML is that the client required to use these platforms covers almost your entire addressable market.