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

261–270 of 587 posts

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#261

Post by bearcobra »

ed312 wrote: post #218
enraged_camel wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me: Personal Capital (finance), WhatsApp, Slack, Overcast (podcasts), Kindle, Dark Sky (hyper accurate weather app), Google Authenticator, Lyft, RENPHO (my smart scale’s app), 1Password Everything else is very situational and totally optional.

off topic of the thread: do you have a strong opinion of Dark Sky vs Weather Underground?

I really like Weather Undergrounds local stations. Being able to see that a location at the top of a hill in town is a couple degrees cooler or windier than one down the street has proven to be really useful when decided to bring a jacket or not. That said Dark Sky's UI is top notch and the data seems to be pretty solid as well.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#262

Post by rifung »

> According to research from the Chrome team at Google and others, people spend more time on mobile apps than they do on mobile websites. [...] 90% [of app time] is spent in a person’s five top apps.

To me this just sounds like people are drawing incorrect conclusions from the statistics? It doesn't seem like people spend more time on apps necessarily but that they download the apps for the things they use the most.

I imagine most people are less likely to try something if it's only available as an app. Having to download something just increases the barrier to entry like a very long page load.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#263

Post by xhedley »

verbify wrote: post #29

That's my feelings, although I've seen so many successful app-only startups that I feel I'm missing something that these startups grasp. E.g. in the UK Monzo, an app-only bank, won't allow you to access your statements, do transfers, or pretty much do anything to manage your account on the web, and is one of the most popular challenger banks.

In the case of mobile banking, your smartphone acts as a second factor of authentication. Older style UK banks require you to have a separate authentication card reader for authentication of transfers, and use the card reader to generate a code to input to the website. Making it app only gets you the same security with more convenience and less cost.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#264

Post by datavirtue »

naravara wrote: post #188
endorphone wrote: post #34

Earlier 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. Not performance wise, not usability wise, and ultimately for the developer not even development wise. How much of a usability advantage does an app for, say, IMDB offer that the regular website doesn't? Or the loyalty card apps that a lot of grocery stores and coffee shops use now? A lot of apps on the market are functionally just wrappers put around a poorly optimized websi…

Website = deliver infornation App = application

Apps suck at delivering information, I'm looking at you WSJ. I cancelled my sub their app was so bad.

Websites suck at apping.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#265

Post by hahabrew »

rifung wrote: post #262

> According to research from the Chrome team at Google and others, people spend more time on mobile apps than they do on mobile websites. [...] 90% [of app time] is spent in a person’s five top apps. To me this just sounds like people are drawing incorrect conclusions from the statistics? It doesn't seem like people spend more time on apps necessarily but that they download the apps for the things they use the most.…

so one assumption that could be made is that mobileapp use takes longer to accomplish anything compared to using web

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#266

Post by johannes1234321 »

sgt wrote: post #116
johannes1234321 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of filtering is that? The fact that there is (hopefully) no malware? - A browser should prevent that as well and has similar failure rate as app review. The app store doesn't tell me anything about whether it's useful or of high quality or anything. From my perspective many apps are single tab browsers with additional spying capabilities.

For one, you have a chance of actually finding quality native apps. Web apps are not completely optimal no matter how you try to sell it. I have nothing specifically against hybrid or web apps (they have their place), but speaking from personal experience I've had most luck with apps that were (1) native (2) cost a few pennies. I say this wearing the consumer or end-user hat. As a developer, I also prefer writing nat…

It is true that a native app can have a value due to integration into the system. However many apps aren't really good and built using cross platform toolkits as doing development two times for the two major platforms is expensive ... There are good and worthwhile apps, but it's low

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#267

Post by chrisweekly »

rixrax wrote: post #216
wvenable wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is especially frustrating that many sites don’t allow Mailinator and other similar ‘one-time’ email systems to be used for registering an account. No way I am going to give you my email address up front before seeing the product. Now the solution is of course to have a separate gmail account to register. Most sites still allow user+site@gmail.com address syntax so that I can sometimes see who are leaking where.…

Tangent: I've been using a nispam@inboxalias.com for years, and it's only recently that I've encountered validation rejections. (Ironically, both times that happened, the form in question did allow +foo@gmail.com.)

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#269

Post by Oreb »

ed312 wrote: post #218
enraged_camel wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me: Personal Capital (finance), WhatsApp, Slack, Overcast (podcasts), Kindle, Dark Sky (hyper accurate weather app), Google Authenticator, Lyft, RENPHO (my smart scale’s app), 1Password Everything else is very situational and totally optional.

off topic of the thread: do you have a strong opinion of Dark Sky vs Weather Underground?

Where I live (Oslo, Norway), the predictions of Dark Sky and Weather Underground are both less accurate than just making an uneducated guess based on how the weather has been developing the last couple of days. I guess they work better in North America

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#270

Post by [deleted] »

ohithereyou wrote: post #240
king_magic wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Here's a tip - take any reddit URL and add '.compact' to the end. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/all/ becomes https://www.reddit.com/r/all/.compact This uses the original reddit mobile site. It is very fast and clean.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN