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

351–360 of 571 posts

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

#351

Post by benoau »

Schiendelman wrote: post #328
benoau wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only have 500 reviewers for the whole App Store, and in fact, they were chastised by the judge in the Epic case for investing very little in the review process six years ago when they also only had 500 reviewers for the whole App Store. This isn't cat and mouse it's theater while they're shielded by section 230 immunity and pocketing enormous profits.

I'm not sure why it matters that they have 500 reviewers, or had six years ago. Is this a "that number seems small" argument?

It matters in the context of trusting their review process, and certainly "seems small" considering these 500 people oversee 2 million apps while scams and fraud have been prolific for years.

I think if they didn't have immunity for all the scams and fraud - and that's being challenged by both the EU regulators and in US courts - they'd probably have a lot more than 500 people. Multiples of it.

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

#352

Post by cwoolfe »

How can we collectively fix apps/websites that are so poorly built that they take 10 minutes and 100 taps on your smartphone just to do something that could have been done in a minute? Companies put out an app/website as the only way to interface with them, you just have to deal with it. I've daydreamed about starting an agency which scouts bad apps and offers to fix them, as a sort of public service.

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

#353

Post by jbverschoor »

adamddev1 wrote: post #336
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…

I really wish PWAs were more well-known among average users. If people knew and expected they could install certain websites as apps, that would simplify things so much and really balance the power of the app stores.

My problem with PWA, is that it usually completely ruins the multiple tabs/windows of the same app/data

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

#354

Post by reaperducer »

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…

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.

I had a similar experience. It was mostly lower- and middle-managers who needed to put their mark on something visible.

I responded with, "Tell me what features you want the app to have that the web site doesn't; or is this a vanity project?" The "vanity project" line is what made people re-think what they were asking.

When that didn't work, I pointed out that they'd have to hire an entire new team to do the app, and gave them a high six-figure number to accomplish what they wanted.† That always worked.

† For a number of regulatory and political reasons, we cannot offshore for cheap.

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

#355

Post by yard2010 »

Why not both? In Prepbook[0] (shameless plug) we created a web app, then used it to make a native app. You can use whatever you want. I like both. The native app though gives an objectively better experience - you can set timers on the OS level, open recipes in the app using the OS native share menu, etc.

We worked hard so you don't have to vibe code your way to get the experience you prefer.

[0] https://prepbook.app

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

#356

Post by realusername »

adamddev1 wrote: post #336
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…

I really wish PWAs were more well-known among average users. If people knew and expected they could install certain websites as apps, that would simplify things so much and really balance the power of the app stores.

It's not well known because it's annoying to install ... and it's annoying to install because the stores are huge cash printing machines so that's not going to change.

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

#357

Post by hadlock »

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…

If the app store allowed you to install bookmarks, I doubt most people would notice.

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

#358

Post by alias_neo »

cozzyd wrote: post #337
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.

I'm fine using my mobile browser for things. What I'm not fine on is using the, um, internet intent thing that comes up when you click on a link in slack or email or something and isn't actually you're browser and if you switch applications it might go away forever?

You need to click the 3 dot menu and select "open in ", then you can switch apps normally as you'd expect and it'll be a tab in your browser like usual.

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

#359

Post by jambalaya8 »

tempestn wrote: post #330
Zak wrote: post #278

I once read that app users are seven times more profitable than web users. That easily answers the author's question about why a company would bother make an app when a web page is the natural fit for the use case. I don't remember the source or methodology for that number, but I have no trouble believing it. An app gives the developer a foothold on the user's device. It can more easily send notifications, track the…

And in fact, a significant subset of users will pester you to make an app, even if your website can and does do everything an app could do.

There are actually apps which will "appify" webpages/websites for Android, or were the last time I needed one. They've been aroubd a long time. I assume they still exist.

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

#360

Post by tcmart14 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #338
autoexec wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When GP says their actual app is "pretty much garbage" and that there was red tape and nitpicking - Apple is trying to stop garbage! and failing at it, because that garbage got published on the app store.

Yeah, that part was a bummer. I get that Apple has incentives at cross purposes there. Do they have a higher bar than Google? Can we even tell?

From experience doing mobile development at work, natively for both Android and iOS, Apple does test and run your app to make sure it works and that it does what it promises to do. I can see it because we issue both Google and Apple accounts and I can see when they get used. While Apple's app review is harsh, it did make our app higher quality and they are quick to reject when there are bugs. They run our app on every review and go through their checklist. Apple is also quick to question the permissions we ask for and make us justify them. In one instance, whoever did the app review, listened to our justification and actually recommended a better, alternative approach. Android, Google test ran our app when we put it up for the first review and havn't used their test credentials for any subsequent reviews to push app updates. We totally could just completely bust our app, push it to the store or do whatever we want and there seems like little to no oversight.
Post reply on HN