Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

hueniverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 322 posts

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#51

Post by padseeker »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #39
padseeker wrote: post #34

I understand and empathize with the author's aggravation. But cheaper? Really? So iOs and Android are more than 90% of the market. You are telling me that it is cheaper to build and maintain 2 separate apps and pass on the remaining part of the market than have one app that covers everything? Android device support is supposed to be a nightmare - there are so many versions to contend with, each device manufacturer ca…

Using the web means you bypass these other issues Not really. If you are doing anything that relies on device hardware, camera, microphone etc... then device type absolutely matters - and it's even worse on mobile web because you can't get close to the metal.

I would agree, the native interface with hardware would be easier with native than the web. But the testing issues across all android devices is still an issue that the web should not have to contend with. And the Apple store issue is hard to quantify. You just don't know if they are going to let you in. The web means you don't have to get the user to install the app.

Of course if you use cordova or phone gap you still have to do deal with those issues. I still cannot conceive when 2 separate apps are cheaper to maintain than one.

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#53

Post by zghst »

takno wrote: post #33

A lot of the issues here are with mobile Safari. I agree it completely sucks just due to how behind Safari are with ES6. On the upside the work is complete to fix this in dev releases, so there's a very good chance that we're 3 months or so away from a large step change. I'm not planning on releasing anything in the next 3 months, so that timetable is okay for me, YMMV

I don't think that it's ES6 that's holding them back, there's Babel to fix that, I think it's all the browser vendors and the varying level of standards, different bugs and behaviors on every browser platform, plus there's features on Native platforms that are nearly impossible to replicate on the web. For instance `backdrop-filter`/iOS 7 like blurring wasn't possible on the web until Webkit implemented it, a year later only Safari has it and it's buggy in Chrome Canary (it blurs content under the box shadow). Another example ServiceWorkers, only in Firefox and Chrome, which cover most users on the Desktop, but on mobile you're screwed because half of your users use mobile Safari.

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#54

Post by padseeker »

padseeker wrote: post #34

I understand and empathize with the author's aggravation. But cheaper? Really? So iOs and Android are more than 90% of the market. You are telling me that it is cheaper to build and maintain 2 separate apps and pass on the remaining part of the market than have one app that covers everything? Android device support is supposed to be a nightmare - there are so many versions to contend with, each device manufacturer ca…

Wow so this post has been 'reported' already? The hacker news justice squad is swift.

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#55

Post by zghst »

seanwilson wrote: post #30

Meh, supporting a couple of iOS versions and a couple of Android versions for a native app along with device specific quirks is as much of a pain as supporting Firefox, Chrome, Safari and IE. Also, maintaining two code bases for native Android and iOS apps is a massive investment compared to a single web app code base.

Well, Native could also mean transitioning over to React Native, Cordova, Phone Gap, etc

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#56

Post by bryanlarsen »

Sure, it may be cheaper to build an Android app and an iOS app than it is to build a responsive web app. I'll buy that.

But most customers want an Android app, an iOS app and a web site for desktop.

It's certainly cheaper to build that desktop webapp if you don't have to make it mobile-y, but is it cheaper to build an Android app, an iOS app and a desktop webapp than it is to build a responsive webapp?

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#57

Post by kartan »

54mf wrote: post #23

"You want mobile notifications? Sure, but not on mobile Safari." You can do this with PhoneGap. "Multiple line ellipsis? Sure, but only on webkit." Okay, yeah, this sucks. "Consistent rendering size across browsers? Just fuck off." This is probably your fault. "We fix a layout bug on Safari and break something on Edge." This is probably your fault. "We change font size on Chrome and now all you can see on Firefox is…

> TL;DR: "We tried to make a responsive web app act like a native app and it didn't work because it doesn't work, and that makes me a grumpy goose."

Complete agree on this, and I think that it is the most important point here. It's similar to the when people try to code in one language and complains that doesn't behaves like the one that they are used to. Browsers are designed for a function, or a lot of them, force your design ignoring web needs is going to produce a buggy hard to maintain software.

Re: It’s cheaper to build multiple native applications than one responsive web app

#59

Post by potatolicious »

tmaly wrote: post #2

I can totally relate to some of this. If you take a look at Meeker's 2016 Internet trends report that came out last week, you will see that 3 apps dominate 80% of the usage on phones. I decided when I started my food side project a year back, that I was not going to do a native app. I have been trying to make the front end look better, but I did not want to use very heavy frameworks, so I settled on using the SASS mi…

I don't really see how user time-share is relevant unless your goal is to start a social network/messaging system.

80% of user time is spent in those 3 apps, that doesn't preclude very profitable apps from being developed. After all, people spend 16+ hours a day at home/work, but there are still plenty of reasons to open restaurants. Unless you profit directly from time-spent-in-app this doesn't seem like a consequential measurement.

See: Uber, pretty low on the charts for time-in-app but yet a massive business. Ditto Amazon, or GrubHub, or any number of other apps that deliver value to their users (and revenue to their owners) without long sessions.

Post reply on HN