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

Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

danq.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 571 posts

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#311

Post by stephenhuey »

paulatreides wrote: post #297
nolok wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On PC I'm definitely there with you, it's on phone where I have this issue

the mobile website is just the PC website with css responsiveness, you can just enable "show desktop version" on mobile if that helps reduce your paranoia

Many years ago, there was a trend to show a different website, sometimes on a different domain and often with more differences than just a mobile version of the stylesheet. Sometimes the mobile version was not updated enough, or there was a reduction in functionality, hence the paranoia.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#312

Post by OkayPhysicist »

Nobody here is talking about the fact that a significant number of users want apps, too.

I'm responsible for an internal tool at the company I work for, hosted as a website, that handles a bunch of miscellaneous tasks that other employees need. Think reimbursements, documentation and reporting, gathering and presenting business data. That sort of thing.

When I took it over, it was desktop only ( a lot of formatted pages with fixed px sizes). I spruced it up, modernized it to work on screens of any size, and created a mobile version of any pages that just didn't translate well to small screens (think "large tables of information").

When I announced the update, the number of people who asked me variations of "how to get website on phone if website on computer" or requested I make the damn thing an app was outrageous.

We take tech literacy for granted, because it's like a dozen levels down fundamental to our entire field. But the tech illiterati exist, and they love apps.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#313

Post by JoshTriplett »

paulatreides wrote: post #297
nolok wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On PC I'm definitely there with you, it's on phone where I have this issue

the mobile website is just the PC website with css responsiveness, you can just enable "show desktop version" on mobile if that helps reduce your paranoia

The other common reason I use "show desktop version" is when the mobile "version" displays nothing but "use our app", while the desktop version actually provides the content.

I've had to use this a few times when on my phone to be able to actually access the webpage.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#314

Post by demosthanos »

Telaneo wrote: post #309
demosthanos wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is the analog to the local electronics store. They're the ones with the direct relationship with you, they're the ones you paid, they took a 30% cut off the app developer's top line explicitly under the pretext that they handle the whole store arrangement. And sure enough, they are in fact the ones who can issue a refund if you need one. The developer cannot. By design.

> Apple is the analog to the local electronics store. They're the ones with the direct relationship with you, they're the ones you paid, they took a 30% cut off the app developer's top line explicitly under the pretext that they handle the whole store arrangement. Yet I can also ask Dell for a refund despite buying my Dell at my local electronics store. Both should be reachable and both should be able to give me a re…

No, Dell will not give you a refund for something purchased at a retailer. For general returns and refunds, the retailer is on the hook because they're the ones who actually took your money.

What Dell will do is repair or replace a computer that is still under warranty. They won't refund.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#315

Post by nitwit005 »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #312

Nobody here is talking about the fact that a significant number of users want apps, too. I'm responsible for an internal tool at the company I work for, hosted as a website, that handles a bunch of miscellaneous tasks that other employees need. Think reimbursements, documentation and reporting, gathering and presenting business data. That sort of thing. When I took it over, it was desktop only ( a lot of formatted pa…

That sounds less like wanting apps, than simply having no idea what's going on.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#317

Post by Telaneo »

demosthanos wrote: post #314
Telaneo wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is the analog to the local electronics store. They're the ones with the direct relationship with you, they're the ones you paid, they took a 30% cut off the app developer's top line explicitly under the pretext that they handle the whole store arrangement. Yet I can also ask Dell for a refund despite buying my Dell at my local electronics store. Both should be reachable and both should be able to give me a re…

No, Dell will not give you a refund for something purchased at a retailer. For general returns and refunds, the retailer is on the hook because they're the ones who actually took your money. What Dell will do is repair or replace a computer that is still under warranty. They won't refund.

> No, Dell will not give you a refund for something purchased at a retailer.

They're legally required to.[1]

[1] https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2002-06-21-34/KAPITTEL_5... Section 35

Edit: Forgot there's an English version.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#318

Post by nitwit005 »

rhines wrote: post #286
nolok wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don't know if that's a generation thing or what but as much as I'm comfortable using my phone, and ordering things in my phone's apps, when it's a website and I'm on mobile I always feel an urge to go to my desktop or laptop to check and do it there, I don't "trust" mobile websites as they always seem to give a limited set of information. Or at least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Interesting. I'm 29 and hate downloading apps on phone or pc, if I can use a website I'll choose that every time. Unless performance matters like a game or media editor.

Users of all ages abandon transactions if it requires installing an app.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#319

Post by carlosjobim »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #219
carlosjobim wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite down voters to make a reply explaining why users would prefer web apps to native apps, given the choice.

At least with web app I have a browser sandbox to protect my system.

I think most modern operating systems have app sandboxes also to protect the system.

Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)

#320

Post by CharlesW »

nolok wrote: post #283
baud9600 wrote: post #276

I remember when Steve Jobs stood on stage and complained about Flash, how he hated its dominance of the free web, how it was a heavy and proprietary technology that prevented mobile devices from participating. His solution? To adopt the latest HTML standards… and also to build responsive apps. But now some apps have become heavy, advertising-bound, subscription nightmares. So it’s back to HTML, right?

They now make 30% of those, no matter the amount of effort, and that part of their business is growing fast in terms of revenues, so no I think even Steve Jobs wouldn't be reverting to html. He was not annoyed about the closed garden, he was annoyed that it wasn't his. Another lesson here is about how Adobe screwed that up when they had control, but then again they never wanted Flash they just wanted to kill Macromed…

> He was not annoyed about the closed garden, he was annoyed that it wasn't his.

Those are reasonable guesses, but as someone who was at Apple at the time (in developer relations, with Adobe/Macromedia among my developers), neither of those were Steve's primary annoyances with Flash. The actual annoyances were that the Flash runtime was (1) slow and (2) very crashy compared to the Windows version.

The former mattered because it created/reinforced a perception that Macs were slow. The latter mattered because it created/reinforced a perception that Macs were unstable, and it created a lot of expensive support calls. (For quite some time, the Flash runtime was the #1 cause of Mac crashes.)

There's more to this story (Adobe was threatening Apple on other fronts), but IMO Steve did the right thing by responding to a toxic partner in the way that he did.

Post reply on HN