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

251–260 of 322 posts

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

#251

Post by arjie »

z0r wrote: post #250

>But it pisses me off every time I see a Twitter thread about how native apps are destroying the free world. I can't understand this sentiment the author claims to see. Web apps are generally going to be less free than native apps. A native app doesn't have to be open and a web app doesn't have to be open, but a web app is definitely going to require that you connect to the host, will probably keep all your data stor…

I freaking love the web as an app platform. Now I don't have to wait for Google Maps for Linux, or Gmail for Linux, or whatever. That world sucked.

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

#252

Post by brbsix »

brianwawok wrote: post #135
rsp1984 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author is already addressing this: Yes, you can build 2007 websites much better now. They will be consistent across platforms and perform great. But my 12 year olds don’t want 2007 websites. They want 2016 apps.

12 year olds don't have money, I would wait till people are at least 16 to care if they use my app...

I empathize with the sentiment, particularly with open source and professional tools. But in mobile gaming and learning, parents are big spenders. Even in 2013, parents of children aged 6-12 in the U.S. spent $2.60/mo on mobile game apps or mobile in-game items.[0] Also I'd guess that children under the age of 16 contributed largely to the success of Snapchat and other such apps.

[0]: http://digitalkidssummit.com/2014/10/01/kids-6-12-in-the-us-...

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

#253

Post by z0r »

arjie wrote: post #251
z0r wrote: post #250

>But it pisses me off every time I see a Twitter thread about how native apps are destroying the free world. I can't understand this sentiment the author claims to see. Web apps are generally going to be less free than native apps. A native app doesn't have to be open and a web app doesn't have to be open, but a web app is definitely going to require that you connect to the host, will probably keep all your data stor…

I freaking love the web as an app platform. Now I don't have to wait for Google Maps for Linux, or Gmail for Linux, or whatever. That world sucked.

Google Maps is magical, but it isn't magical when you can't view uncached tiles or search for things when your connection is offline. A downloadable map application that you could purchase and view and search entirely offline would be even more magical.

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

#254

Post by mastazi »

chc wrote: post #200
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't have any issue with swearing but using any word that often is just poor writing.

I don't know about that. The word "web" is used far more often in that article than any swear word, and "build" is used precisely as often. Yet there are no comments complaining about those words, and I feel pretty sure there wouldn't be even if the swearing were omitted. It seems like it's the swearing that people object to.

I object to swearing. I believe it's a very inefficient way to convey meaning, especially in a technical context, where it may make it actually harder to follow the line of thought. In addition, in some contexts (e.g. socially conservative environments), it could potentially be offensive to some people, and I generally think it's not worth to offend people unless there is a reason for it. It may be argued that some swear words are particularly good at transferring connotative meaning, but then the English language is rich enough that you can find other ways to do so.

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

#255

Post by mmargerum »

andrewclunn wrote: post #42

He forgot to mention how web frameworks come and go, and then you've got this legacy code nightmare. Also breaking upgrades and dependency hell. I'm a front end web developer, and yeah. If your building something simple, the web is the way to go, but his complaints are totally on spot.

Yup. I've got iOS native code written for iOS 2 still runs like a champ. My 2 year old angular 1 code is looking like a total rewrite.

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

#256

Post by EGreg »

Seriously... there should be a framework that takes care of all that for you.

We built this framework. And it took us four YEARS. Ok, it also does a ton more stuff than just make the app work across devices.

But, the web rocks. Seriously. PhoneGap lets you basically stuff the web app into a fullscreen shell and go to town. And the best part is that you gey to control updates, totally legally without Apple holding you up. Have a front-end bug? Fix it for everyone tomorrow! Have a new feature you want to roll out to only 5% of your users? YOU CAN! And then A/B test it. Whoa. Like how would you A/B test with the app store? Yeah, that.

Also... when invitation links are clicked, where do you think the mobile user goes?

TO THE WEB.

And so... you need a web experience anyway, that does more than say "Please download our app. Here is a nice picture and description so you can clutter your phone now."

And finally... web push notifications? Yes, this is one of the TWO BIGGEST THINGS MISSING in iOS Safari. (The other is access to the address book, with permission of course.)

But I think that's about to change at WWDC. Android Chrome has Web Push!

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

#257

Post by EGreg »

rsp1984 wrote: post #116
donatj wrote: post #66

I don't think that's remotely true if you keep the responsive web app simple. YNGNI and KISS and what not. I've been doing this for over ten years. In that time I've seen large web applications built for under 4k; I've also seen massively overbuilt simple applications go for 50k+. It comes down to often how needlessly complex you make the stack. If you stick with solid simple guaranteed tech instead of cutting edge y…

I think the author is already addressing this: Yes, you can build 2007 websites much better now. They will be consistent across platforms and perform great. But my 12 year olds don’t want 2007 websites. They want 2016 apps.

What exactly differentiates a "2007 website" from a "2016 app"?

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

#258

Post by graycat »

elliotec wrote: post #247
graycat wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you are correct. For my startup, I've assumed you are correct. Since my startup is my first Web site, I'm no expert in the issues in the OP here. So, HELP! Guys here who know more than I do about Web apps on different Web browsers on different client devices, which is nearly everyone on HN, help me out here -- am I on or off track? Where am I going wrong? So, what I've built is just a Web site ( Web app ). For…

You have to tell us what is wrong first, in other words why do you think you're going wrong? There is nothing wrong with what you've described as far as I can tell. But what issues are you having? Users not going to your site? Likely not a tech problem.

Thanks.

My site is not live on the Internet yet. On my development computer, it appears that the site works as intended, but I'm still testing, say, alpha testing. Then when I invite in people, call that beta testing.

For what is "wrong", I am just guessing that I might have encountered some of the problems mentioned in the OP.

Or, maybe even the simple, old HTML, CSS, and JavaScript I'm sending to the users might have problems on some Web browsers on some mobile devices? I don't have a mobile device, certainly not a big collection of them, for testing. So, likely the beta test will be the first real test if my simple, old HTML, etc. will work on various Web browsers on iPhone, Android, tablets, old/new laptops, etc.

But no doubt other Web site developers here on HN have already been there, done that.

Or, for the question, what precautions, considerations, limitations, etc. have to honor to have a relatively simple Web page display and act as intended on a wide range of client devices?

Thanks!

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

#259

Post by padseeker »

st3v3r wrote: post #241
padseeker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sti…

"But the testing issues across all android devices is still an issue that the web should not have to contend with." And yet, it is. "And the Apple store issue is hard to quantify. You just don't know if they are going to let you in." Yeah, you do. It's pretty easy to read the rules. And things being flat out denied, rather than told they need to fix something, is really rare.

The number of permutations for testing scenarios across android versions as well as hardware manufacturers is significantly bigger than the number of available browsers. The difference between browsers is well documented and as far as I'm concerned finite. How many versions of Android are worth supporting? What about the differences between manufacturers. Browser differences are generally known and well documented. Can you say the same for Android?

There are many scenarios where I agree it is significantly harder to create a user experience building a web app that can compare with the native experience. But the premise of the article is that it is cheaper to build on 2 separate native platforms than it is to build web app?

The part that gets me is the author complains about things like multiple line ellipses and autocomplete text boxes. Here's a better question - why are multiple line ellipses core to your business? What value does a multiple line ellipse do for the app?

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

#260

Post by giovannibajo1 »

emdd wrote: post #110
pboutros wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you go to this effort is why I love HN.

If only we could get notifications for replies & a decent mobile app existed.

I use minihack on iOS, it works quite well for reading and posting. UX is a little under designed, but it does its job
Post reply on HN