Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A native app with no server backend is the same as a web application with no server backend. In that case you really just need to put those static web files into an S3 bucket and route a domain to it. The cost is very low for this.
Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
231–240 of 587 posts
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#232Given 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…
Sure they do. Consider Reddit's website (well, before the atrocious UX updates the past few months) vs. their mobile app. It work(s)/(ed) perfectly fine.
There's literally no reason to use their native app (well, other than their ridiculous, atrocious, never-ending prompts on their mobile website to use their native app).
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#233Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#234>An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month. "A developer license is $99/year, but a website is less than $120/year!" Very weird statement.
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#23580% of apps are uninstalled in the first 10min (especially if they ask for information or creating an account). Once uninstalled very unlikely they will ever install again. In my dev shop, I always advise clients to look into website MVP over apps unless IT IS CRITICAL to the functionality. Websites can always bring back ppl who were initially uninterested. Faster development/instant updates. Better tracking and UX a…
How many websites ever get passed the signup stage? I often will leave as soon as I'm tasked with creating an account and I'm not likely to come back.
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#236Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#237I don't even bother installing apps anymore, I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. I got my core 10 apps and haven't bought a new one in a year.
This is my position as well. Unless your app is going to provide substantial features over your website or operating system like functionality. I'm not even going to try it out.
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#238Here is my logic!
1. Invites have a URL.
2. The person doesn’t have the app yet, so they can get taken to the Website or the app store.
3. If Website, then if invite token is unique we can automatically confirm their phone number or email, and get everyone who has them in their contacts to follow them, so they instantly get friends and socially generated content they can interact with.
4. And then redirect to the app store. Then when the app is downloaded, it can open a BrowserTab inside and get a signed NewSessionID for the app. (Note: this ain’t oauth folks, our server uses a secret to sign and verify its own issued payloads that are relayed through clients like this.)
5. The result: zero passwords needed, tons of steps skipped. But then you think, what do you need the app for? Android has Chrome Notifications. So you only need it for Contacts. So you place buttons to download app in appropriate places.
6. If you’re gonna make a website anyway, then why not reuse it inside WebViews to not duplicate work?
7. But it’s not easy to make a website working across all browsers and devices and take advantage of touch and cameras on phones, and work differently on mobile phones (with sms://...) and QR codes and so on. There has to be a platform that does everything for you so you can just focus on building your app. Same as Mac and Windows handled GUI for all apps so you could focus on building your app. We need a Web OS for apps.
8. So basically, after 7 years of work, you arrive at this:
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I figure most things don't need an app unless they are trying to take more data anyway. Anything telling me to install an app whose mobile experience is fine already is very fishy to me. I'm looking at you, Reddit.
Reddit lives on ad revenue. Mobile web reddit is not in fact incredibly optimal which is why a bunch of third party apps exist. These third party apps make it impossible to show ads save for promoted posts which people don't seem to like. Thus the official reddit app. I prefer "Reddit is Fun" which seems to load faster than mobile web reddit and notify me on comment replies.
Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> No PWA competes with a native experience. Sure they do. Consider Reddit's website (well, before the atrocious UX updates the past few months) vs. their mobile app. It work(s)/(ed) perfectly fine. There's literally no reason to use their native app (well, other than their ridiculous, atrocious, never-ending prompts on their mobile website to use their native app).
This uses the original reddit mobile site. It is very fast and clean.