No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by lutusp » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

nollidge wrote: post #126

lutusp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, but I see way way way less ads in apps than on the web. Yes, because these "walled-garden" apps are just being introduced, and they want to be on their best behavior for the moment. Sort of like a drug dealer, who gives the addict his first hit free. Also, I think you meant to say "fewer ads", not "less ads": http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer

That grammar rule is BS. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.h...

> That grammar rule is BS.

Since language isn't science, and since dictionaries are only meant to describe how people use words, not tell people how to use words, that claim could be made about any grammar rule or word definition or spelling, with some degree of justice.

The counterargument is that clear communications is helped along by adopting common conventions for word usage.

And the linked article only points out that there are ambiguous cases where less or fewer are equally appropriate, not that the rule has no merit.

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

#172

Post by lutusp » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

youngerdryas wrote: post #102

lutusp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's a strategy to dismantle the Web > Dismantling the Web isn't anybody's strategy ... By "web" I mean the public forum that anyone can access with a standards-compliant browser. And yes, there is such a strategy, and making money is the underlying motive. > A strategy that makes things less convenient for consumers is a losing strategy. Yes, unless consumers have no choice. Consider the present cell phone system…

From the article >For those who may not have understood or thought to ask, “unlocking” is not the same as “jailbreaking.” In a nutshell, jailbreaking involves making it possible for a device to run code either from sources the manufacturer did not intend the device to be able to use or to run code the manufacturer did not intend it to be able to run (though most people talk about Apple IOS devices, Sony, for example,…

> Jailbreaking is still legal.

Not any more:

http://investorplace.com/2013/01/jailbreaking-your-phone-wil...

Quote: "‘Jailbreaking’ Your Phone Will Be Illegal After Jan. 26 ... Wireless carriers will now have to give permission"

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

#173

Post by lutusp » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

scarlson wrote: post #91

lutusp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to another. > I have a hard time believing that considering the prevalence of the "share" button in apps. But a "share" button in a dedicated app isn't remotely a hyperlink. A hyperlink only tells the reader about the destination, but a "share" button also tells the recipient about the source. >> I think this idea works best with rel…

> Sure -- paywalls are a classic example. As soon as we accept paywalls and read articles behind paywalls, we can't share content any more. These dedicated apps are like paywalls taken to the next level. > But young, inexperienced people often don't see the problem with paywalls when compared to a public forum. The same logic applies to these dedicated apps -- they make it harder to share information. Their existence…

> Not exactly citation.

True, but I wasn't making a quantitative claim about behavior, only saying that it existed as a factor. And I have a self-referential problem with the source:

"With the purchase of a Premium Account figures, numbers, and downloads may be accessed."

Somewhat funny, actually. :)

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

#174

Post by Lagged2Death » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #79

Mmm... I guess I'm a cynic, but people are, surprisingly, not as stupid as you think. If a company has a phone app, there's a reason. It might be so they can harvest your contacts. It might be so they can have a 'premium' version because they think it'll convert better than a web pay wall. It might be so they have add invasive (read: profitable) ads directly to your device, which (arguably) convert better than web ba…

I think a lot of the development of apps (and before that the web itself) was "me-tooism," but that doesn't necessarily make it stupid.

It's more a matter of getting on the bandwagon while things are still heating up, and figuring out how to make it work for you as you go.

"The web is going mobile; we need to be on mobile; the mobile world is a world of apps; therefore we need an app to stake out a presence in that space."

No part of the chain of reasoning is wrong or stupid in and of itself, but the product of thousands of actors following the same logic is chaos and waste. You could see it as a variation on the tragedy of the commons.

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

#175

Post by rapind » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

shadesandcolour wrote: post #125

hilko wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that market is covered by Instapaper and Pocket, among others.

Sure it is, so long as you've remembered to fill Instapaper or Pocket with stories from the newspaper's website that you wanted to read. If you ran out the door without having time to peruse the stories on the internet this morning Instapaper won't do you any good.

Neither will having an app that you didn't launch and sync before getting on the subway. Seems like the same amount of effort to me.

There's an advantage to Instapaper and company in that it's centralized and you only have to launch the one app to pull down all of your content regardless of the source.

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

#176

Post by jarek » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:37 PM UTC

rapind wrote: post #175

shadesandcolour wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is, so long as you've remembered to fill Instapaper or Pocket with stories from the newspaper's website that you wanted to read. If you ran out the door without having time to peruse the stories on the internet this morning Instapaper won't do you any good.

Neither will having an app that you didn't launch and sync before getting on the subway. Seems like the same amount of effort to me. There's an advantage to Instapaper and company in that it's centralized and you only have to launch the one app to pull down all of your content regardless of the source.

> Neither will having an app that you didn't launch and sync before getting on the subway. Seems like the same amount of effort to me.

And here I thought in 2013 apps could download their content in background when phone is idle. Maybe when the owner is sleeping at home with fast wifi all around. Might make too much sense though.

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

#177

Post by jarek » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

lprubin wrote: post #153

wallawe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or DC

or NYC

So, modern infrastructure Sahara then :)

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

#178

Post by nathan_long » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #143

Without the exploration of seemingly ridiculous ideas there is no progress. What does not work ultimately evaporates into history. The truly useful remains. And during the transition some ignore it while others adopt, experiment, learn and contribute. And, of course, there's yet another group that can do nothing but whine. That's not to say that this might not have some value. However, for some reason, if I was the f…

Your point is valid but does not refute the OP, who is saying "this does not work and should evaporate into history." Such reactions are part of how we collectively discard failed ideas.

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

#179

Post by nathan_long » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

I think the goal of an app is prominence on your device. The creator imagines you have an address book app, a camera app, a browser app, and Our Content App on your home page. You might have 100 bookmarks in the browser, but you'll see Our Content App differently, because it's got its own icon.

In practice, I think people either 1) have dozens of apps, so that the "priority" effect is less important, or 2) have few apps and generally refuse to install an app to do what a web page should do.

Either way, I think that in a few years, we'll look back on this trend and laugh. (Personally, I've been laughing about it for a while.)

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

#180

Post by gojomo » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

shurcooL wrote: post #160

nsxwolf wrote: post #149

Apple could solve this problem on iOS by giving us a button that forces the browser to appear to be desktop Safari, but apparently this is all part of their overall apps strategy or something. The best is when after you go through all the nonsense, you get "This article is not available on your device." It's like when you want to watch a video, and you have to watch a 30 second ad first, and after the ad you get an e…

I hope you know Chrome for iOS has that exact feature. It makes the iPad a lot more useful for me.

...as do other alternative browsers, like iCab Mobile or AtomicWeb.

Handy for not just getting around app-prompts but also other over-customization for mobile/touch devices (like 'OnSwipe' or forced-mobile-site-version).