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

Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

atrium.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 587 posts

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#101

Post by pjmlp »

endorphone wrote: post #34
shams93 wrote: post #2

Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out. With a progressive web app if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without installing via the app store and without using up space on their device. Also don't need to pay Apple $100 a ye…

We've been hearing the same pitch for literally years. Heck, I've made some of them myself: "This is it, people! Native apps have been rendered unnecessary!" No PWA competes with a native experience. Not performance wise, not usability wise, and ultimately for the developer not even development wise. It may still make a lot of sense, and there are a lot of arguments for web apps, but the enthusiasm in this discussion…

On the contrary.

In spite of my preference for native apps, I only got payed to deliver mobile Web and hybrid apps.

The large majority of CRUD apps don't need native features.

Also signed PWAs have access to native APIs on UWP and ChromeOS.

It is only a matter of time until the Chrome team exposes the same capability on Android.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#102

Post by johnday »

wvenable wrote: post #98
johnday wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there's a bit of apples and oranges here - for example, any modern internet-connected app would also need a server backend.

But once we talking about that money, $100 a year is peanuts.

True. It's also worth noting that a $5/mo VPS can get you surprisingly far with respect to well-designed websites and services.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#103

Post by ryanwaggoner »

fromdowntown wrote: post #93
wuliwong wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think notifications are universally "a problem"? I find many notifications to be quite useful. Appointment reminders are VERY important to me and not at all a problem.

They probably mean generally a problem. Things like reminders seems like a good use case, but with all the apps trying to increase engagement, it seems necessary to mute notifications to an app right after downloading it.

You don’t need to “mute” them, just don’t approve the notifications permission request. Out of the 100+ apps I have installed, I have zero that annoy me with notifications.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#104

Post by wvenable »

johnday wrote: post #72
wvenable wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web hosting will cost more than $99/year so not all the costs of the web application are factored into this article.

Sure, but there's a bit of apples and oranges here - for example, any modern internet-connected app would also need a server backend.

Also I just installed Daylio which is a cool little diary application. They have no web app, it's mobile app only. It backs up your data to Google Drive. It has no server component, no signup, etc.

Admittedly there are limitations of not having a server backend but for a MVP that's another way to go.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#105

Post by ransom1538 »

shams93 wrote: post #2

Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out. With a progressive web app if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without installing via the app store and without using up space on their device. Also don't need to pay Apple $100 a ye…

After years of experience:

0) Native means you get notifications: APNS, GCM.

1) If you don't go native, you go SEO. SEO is hard.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#106

Post by softfalcon »

I feel like this is coming from a good place. They're trying to help the majority of devs choose the right platform for their project to be the most successful.

As many before me have commented, the choice of platform depends on your situation, the technical limitations that come with it, and what kind of experience you want to deliver.

You have to use what makes sense and delivers what you need to satisfy your users. End of story.

Silver bullet solutions make a good headline, but they rarely address all possible concerns of a specific problem. Especially not with a broad audience.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#108

Post by clintonb »

clarky07 wrote: post #66
csours wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, you have to have a really damn good reason to start with an app. Distribution is hell.

how so? click a button and download to device? now you have an icon that the user sees every day. How is the web better than that?

Challenges with apps:

1. Creating a good experience on Android and iOS

2. Getting approval to publish to the major app stores

3. Advertising to users so they actually download the app

4. Reminding users to use the app.

> now you have an icon that the user sees every day.

My home screen only has room for 24 items. Those items haven't changed much in a few years. I may have traded one app for another (e.g. Pocket Casts replaced Apple Podcasts), but that's about it. I don't look at the random Uniqlo app I downloaded to save 10% that one time every day. I don't look at the various restaurant apps every day.

I do have bookmarks in Chrome that I visit frequently. Why? I'm in Chrome for a significant part of the day.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#109

Post by menckenjr »

untog wrote: post #86
mcny wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally suspect it has a lot to do with waking up a service worker outside of the browser lifecycle - given how aggressively iOS monitors apps no longer running in foreground I can imagine that being quite a hurdle to overcome (without compromising the reason for doing it in the first place). I don't think this is true. Please correct me if I am wrong but there are ways to handle the scenario. Apple could crea…

> In addition, it could say something like your worker can only run in the background if a user has been to your site in the last n hours But iOS apps can't do that. The only way they can guarantee background execution is if they are playing audio, or say they're a VOIP app. Of course, Apple could change those rules for Safari, but what I'm saying is that I don't think it's as simple as just flipping a switch - it'll…

Getting background location updates will also let your app stay unsuspended. You better have a good reason for getting them, though, or your app won't make it into the store. (Ditto for VoIP or audio apps; the app store reviewers are wise to tricks for mimicking services in a non-service architecture.)

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#110

Post by wvenable »

johnday wrote: post #102
wvenable wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But once we talking about that money, $100 a year is peanuts.

True. It's also worth noting that a $5/mo VPS can get you surprisingly far with respect to well-designed websites and services.

You shouldn't run a production environment on a single $5/mo VPS.
Post reply on HN