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

271–280 of 322 posts

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

#271

Post by vbezhenar »

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

Last time I checked, a lot of Android phones in my region (including new ones) were running 2.X versions with some unnamed browsers (probably webkit-based, but not chrome). For me that's much more issue. I can live with Safari, because there are 2 actual versions (iOS 8 & iOS 9) and they are modern enough. But those archaic androids with unnamed browsers are nightmare that I have to support.

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

#272

Post by esprehn »

zghst wrote: post #53
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 la…

I filed the backdrop-filter bug: http://crbug.com/618913 Hopefully we can get it sorted. :)

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

#273

Post by [deleted] »

graycat wrote: post #258
elliotec wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

[deleted]

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

#274

Post by [deleted] »

graycat wrote: post #258
elliotec wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by kyriakos »

elliotec wrote: post #224
tracker1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a little practice, you can do it with newer tech too... I've banged out several small apps using react+redux on webpack+babel, and it's gone really smooth and came out really light and decently structured.

Practice sounds like exactly what OP is trying to avoid. Also, you're talking about small apps. And also, webpack is the most incomprehensible waste of time that I've ever encountered in development. No hyperbole.

Thank you. I thought it was just me finding webpack confusing.

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

#276

Post by dec0dedab0de »

fpgeek wrote: post #267
djsumdog wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps stores are crippled excused for real package management. In the open world, you can import someone else's key and repository and install their packages. In Play/iOS/Windows you have a single provider. There's no bug tracker to add your packages and no way to add a stable and unstable channel..unless both apps are in the same store ...and every beta release then has to get approved. It's maddening. I wrote a thin…

iOS and Windows Phone devices may be limited to a single package provider, but Android devices are not. I've had more than one store on my Android phones and tablets for over five years now. And, yes, I'd love it if there were a standard way to include signing keys for additional stores so that installations were seamless, that's not a significant problem in practice.

ATM's at casinos and clubs can charge $5+ dollars for a withdrawal, but that doesn't make it a viable solution for even %10 of ATMs.

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

#277

Post by Illniyar »

There might be something to the headline but the content isn't delivering.

1. You can't compare making an ios and android app to making an app for every bloody broweser, I mean you could just as easily built your webite to safari and chrome for mobile. You want a true cost comparision compare building an app for universal windows, and mac and linux. Of course if you reduce the scope of your app's access you are going to get reduced costs.

2. Building a messaging app is probably the least appropriate and one of the hardest things to build with web technologie( after a game). Use the appropriate technology for your app.

3. By your remarks on how costly mobile developers are, I'm guessing you've hired to inexpierenced web developrs. Get expierenced developers who know the limitations and best practices and you wont encounter so many issues.

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

#278

Post by Sylos »

jdmichal wrote: post #122
tootie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And not being searchable or deep linkable or shareable.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by each of these, but at least in Android apps can register to open URLs. So you can search for and share, say, a Facebook link. Tap it, and it opens in the Facebook app (or the browser, or any other app registered to handle the URL, your choice!).

I think these are the definitions that he/she goes by:

Searchable: It being possible to find contents on the service via web search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo etc.).

Deep linkable: It being possible to link to specific content on the service (and not just to the service as a whole).

Shareable: It being likely that your service as a whole is linked to. While you can share with someone that an app exists, it's far less likely that users will do so, because of the install-barrier.

And what you mentioned requires the service to maintain both an app and a webpage, so that doesn't work when we're talking about dropping the webpage...

Post reply on HN