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

“It works better in the app”

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 496 posts

Re: “It works better in the app”

#441

Post by brewdad »

inigyou wrote: post #345
mikepurvis wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, just a plain tap-to-pay on the meter itself (or a nearby kiosk) is the obvious solution. I think doing it on the meter is awkward because then they all need to be online, so you're either dealing with individual M2M cards or some kind of local mesh network, not to mention powering them all. The kiosk is another thing to have to install and maintain and power. And doing a plain tap would have no way of inputting…

And what if I don't use Apple Pay or Google Pay?

Enter a credit/debit card number then. They are under zero obligation to allow you a cash payment method.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#442

Post by reaperducer »

goosejuice wrote: post #431
reaperducer wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. With over 200,000 paying users. The Customer Service department (we're a real business, so we have one of those) forwards all email, social media, and phone contacts about it to me. Number of middle managers who have brought up having an app since 2019: Around five. Number of actual users who asked for an app since 2019: One. Maybe two. Your turn.

> Number of actual users who asked for an app since 2019: One. Maybe two Have you ever asked them?

Surprisingly, yes.

My company requires everyone in the company to meet our customers in person once a year. Everyone from the CEO on down to tech nerd button pushers like myself.

Our method of telemetry is called "talking to people."

Re: “It works better in the app”

#443

Post by goosejuice »

tpmoney wrote: post #440
goosejuice wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of you are conflating conspiracy with incentives. They have no incentive to promote a distribution model outside of the confines of the app store where they make all their money.

Sure I agree they have no incentive to promote them. But your claim wasn’t that they don’t promote them. You claimed that they’re making them exceedingly difficult to install. Apparently because they put the command for that in a consistent menu position for decades and removing the functionality temporarily in a single jurisdiction. If they wanted to make it “exceedingly difficult” they could be disabling it in all…

> “exceedingly difficult”

Who are you quoting?

But sure call me crazy for thinking it's user hostile to put install / add to home 5 taps deep into the menu. That has nothing to do with supporting a 2015 web API. They would go on to add smart app banners to promote native app store apps instead.

Edit: didn't realize smart app banner was 2012

Re: “It works better in the app”

#444

Post by prism56 »

petepete wrote: post #138

I listen to Radio 4 quite a bit and occasionally want to check the schedule ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm ) On mobile, Googling 'radio 4 schedule' is the quickest way, and the only negative bit about the entire experience is the popup that tells me 'it's better in the app'. It's not. Not by any metric. My search and opening a webpage takes a second or two. Opening the app takes several sec…

If you use brave or Firefox and ublock origin. You can just block the elements. I do this on so many sites now.

While ads are blocked I still remove tonnes of needless elements on websites I frequent. Hide little banners or app reminders.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#445

Post by goosejuice »

reaperducer wrote: post #442
goosejuice wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Number of actual users who asked for an app since 2019: One. Maybe two Have you ever asked them?

Surprisingly, yes. My company requires everyone in the company to meet our customers in person once a year. Everyone from the CEO on down to tech nerd button pushers like myself. Our method of telemetry is called "talking to people."

I'm not sure why you find the snark necessary.

I wouldn't find it productive to talk to 200,000 users in person to determine if it's worth building a native app. I suspect most startups talk to some of their customers in person but I don't know anyone making sweeping product decisions based on that.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#446

Post by ButlerianJihad »

PaulHoule wrote: post #353
Zigurd wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real face palm how LinkedIn squandered the opportunity to be a relatively benign social media product. School kids would have zero interest in it except for that guy who wears a bowtie to high school. And yet they have made it such a swamp full of dark patterns. What's the marginal gain on that? They're the only game in town for the kinds of people who advertise on LinkedIn.

I love it how a normal social network makes a "ding" sound when somebody likes your post but LinkedIn gives you a "ding" for just posting anything at all! Overall it is a place that sends the message that "standards are low here"; don't know how to write? Microsoft Copilot will do it for you, etc.

And on Hacker News, if you post something really controversial, you get a “dang”!

Re: “It works better in the app”

#447

Post by pull_my_finger »

brk wrote: post #9

At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high. If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions. If by extension that degrades the value I get from your site, then I just won't use the site, and I won't be contributing to ADU stats you promote to advertisers. Every single company has…

Spotify comes to mind immediately. Of all things, they wall off your saved music - premium doesn't matter. There is literally no reason to prevent web app users from accessing what is essentially just another playlist, other than to coerce the native app adoption.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#448

Post by TFNA »

jknoepfler wrote: post #175
gtufano wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual reality is that it's impossible to have people go to a web site from a physical ad/offer/thing without using a QR (or paying Google). Google (and friends) managed to hide the URL almost totally, people don't even know that you can go somewhere without searching on google. So the options are: paying google to have your name point to you (an expensive choice depending on the actual name) or use a QR. Weirdly…

Did domain names stop functioning all of the sudden? Going to somedipshitsbar.com/menu is about as complicated as entering a wifi password at a coffee shop.

Wifi passwords at cafes are often now given as QR codes, precisely because customers find that easier than typing the string in.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#449

Post by tpmoney »

goosejuice wrote: post #443
tpmoney wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I agree they have no incentive to promote them. But your claim wasn’t that they don’t promote them. You claimed that they’re making them exceedingly difficult to install. Apparently because they put the command for that in a consistent menu position for decades and removing the functionality temporarily in a single jurisdiction. If they wanted to make it “exceedingly difficult” they could be disabling it in all…

> “exceedingly difficult” Who are you quoting? But sure call me crazy for thinking it's user hostile to put install / add to home 5 taps deep into the menu. That has nothing to do with supporting a 2015 web API. They would go on to add smart app banners to promote native app store apps instead. Edit: didn't realize smart app banner was 2012

I apologize, it does seem like I misread and added the qualifier, you just claimed they made it “difficult”. My mistake.

But I still disagree that it is “difficult” or “user hostile” to put the command to add a web app to your Home Screen 3 (not 5) taps away. Menu -> submenu -> command is not user hostile or difficult. The command is in the same place as all the other “do something with this page” commands. It’s not hidden behind toggles, it’s not buried in submenus away from other similar actions, it’s not in its own menu or an activity you have to leave safari for and initiate from the Home Screen instead. It takes just as many taps to change to a specific tab as it does to save a PWA

Re: “It works better in the app”

#450

Post by Andrex »

I have a weird personal theory that whittling down the number of app vendors on your phone is just a good thing to do.

As a Pixel user, I've gotten my phone to just having four (4) third-party app vendors.

- Duolingo (I've never seen an app be so annoying in a positive way, I appreciate it)

- Nintendo (obvs)

- Caffeine (quick setting tile that keeps the screen on--should really be a native feature, and I hope that day comes soon so I can ditch this)

- Super Productivity (saved my life)

Having a banking app installed seems way riskier than using a website. If someone had access to my phone, the banking app stands out like a spotlight. But if it's not installed, they have to open the browser, guess which bank I'm using, and enter the right URL (possibly aided by autocomplete, possibly not).

It just feels like a safer, additional step. My bank's mobile website is junk but I'm not spending all day on it.

In summation, fuck your app, give me a website.

Post reply on HN