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

No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

tommorris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 222 posts

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#161

Post by Zak »

mkr-hn wrote: post #144
krichman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is correct. It's far more difficult to compete as a cell phone service due to FCC regulations. It's a government granted mono/duopoly. I expect to see cell service remain complete shit. I don't expect these per-website apps as they exist now to be widely used.

This needs a lot of expansion. Which FCC regulations are keeping competition out?

It's my impression that the fact that a fairly limited range of frequencies are allocated for mobile phone use is a barrier to entry.

I don't think that's the main difference between the US and say... Germany though. I'm pretty sure German carriers are required to sell each other access to their networks under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, making it fairly easy to become a carrier without building a bunch of cell towers. The phones are all GSM and almost all unlocked, so it really is as easy to switch as getting a SIM from a new carrier.

This actually appears to be a case of more regulation, applied to just the right spot resulting in more competition. Politically, I'm not usually in favor of a lot of regulation, but it looks like it works in this case.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#162

Post by ianstallings »

I've built a few mobile "reader" applications for large media clients and the main reason they use native apps is for offline browsing when your connection goes bad, allowing a smooth reading experience. If the app doesn't do this at the very minimum then there's really no point to it.

Other things we do: 1. Add games and other content that doesn't work well across mobile browsers. 2. Allow in-app purchases of other content such as white papers or related books that fit into the devices "book shelf" application, whatever that may be.

Now for a tech perspective - If you've ever built an app on a mobile device that is based on HTML5 you'll know that the performance lags when compared to a native app. When you throw in content animations, such as in a children's interactive story book, the comparison is moot. I'll bet against anybody that thinks they can get similar performance from a web-based application on a mobile device. I've done it and I know for certain it's a terrible solution who's only benefit is to the development team and not the end user. My apps are almost 100% native now with HTML being used for content I don't want to touch, like terms and conditions and privacy statements that I pull from a website.

My point? Native apps benefit the end user if done properly. Just because some fools botched a workflow doesn't negate this.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#166

Post by papsosouid »

mgkimsal wrote: post #140
downandout wrote: post #5

I agree for the most part with this article. I think the major problem is that apps are being developed that offer absolutely no advantage over viewing the website in a browser - in fact many offer disadvantages. This is what happens when a market crowded with some shockingly bad app developers is combined with ignorant executive mandates that companies must have apps simply to be able to say that they have them.

We've been conditioned to want apps. Or... many people have. iPhone is synonymous with 'apps'. My grandmother understands 'apps' (well, mostly!) I was on a project last year, and we built a mobile website (could work in iPhone/Android and probably winphone, but we didn't test). Got a lot of immediate "yeah that's great" from some people. Partners reached out for potential customers/sales - every single one returned w…

Those people don't know what an app is. The people going "where's the app" will also look at your site on your phone and think it is an app. They just need a way to bookmark your site and see a little icon for it with their apps.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#167

Post by dbh937 »

> Apps ought to provide some actual functionality, not just blobs of content wrapped up in binary files.

I completely agree with this. I've downloaded some apps for blogs on my phone, but I realized that they just sit there in a folder, on a home page a rarely visit, while my RSS app is front and center in my dock.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#168

Post by cramerica »

Is this as big of an issue as the article makes it out to be? I just went to about 30 news sites on my iPhone and none of them prompted me to download an app, the more common approach now seems to be a small popup that says "click here to add this homepage to your home screen". The only one that really restricted me was Quora (which isn't news but I saw it mentioned in the comments so I gave it a try).

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#169

Post by nivla »

danielweber wrote: post #147
downandout wrote: post #5

I agree for the most part with this article. I think the major problem is that apps are being developed that offer absolutely no advantage over viewing the website in a browser - in fact many offer disadvantages. This is what happens when a market crowded with some shockingly bad app developers is combined with ignorant executive mandates that companies must have apps simply to be able to say that they have them.

What I really really don't like about the Android app model is that an app will come along and demand over a dozen permissions. And I either accept them all or don't download the app.

I really hate it when some apps require unnecessary permissions. Why would a game require access to my contacts or my personal photos and videos? Flicks me into the paranoid mode, especially since the news about Facebook and other major companies exporting your contact list and personal information to their servers.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#170

Post by AnIrishDuck »

mkr-hn wrote: post #144
krichman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is correct. It's far more difficult to compete as a cell phone service due to FCC regulations. It's a government granted mono/duopoly. I expect to see cell service remain complete shit. I don't expect these per-website apps as they exist now to be widely used.

This needs a lot of expansion. Which FCC regulations are keeping competition out?

Spectrum ownership and broadcast power limitations. To operate as a wireless service provider at the scale that cell phone companies do, you need the FCCs explicit permission. The process to get approval is long, expensive, and fraught with peril (see the LightSquared debacle [1]).

This kind of regulation is ultimately justifiable. You don't want service providers using conflicting technologies and hammering each others airspace. You quickly end up with what economists call the tragedy of the commons[2].

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/lightsquared-redu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Post reply on HN