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

181–190 of 222 posts

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

#181

Post by jonnathanson »

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.

"ignorant executive mandates that companies must have apps simply to be able to say that they have them"

This seems to be the case more often than not. Company executives feel pressured to release an app, any app, because "that's the future" according to whatever self-styled expert they listened to at XYZ Conference. So they crank out a useless app or two, and they get to tell their colleagues, peers, ad agencies, and Wall Street that they are forward thinking.

Such a strategy completely ignores the customer and his/her needs, of course. Publishing an app just to publish an app is pointless at best, and damaging to one's brand at worst. A company without a solid app strategy would be far better served just not releasing one at all. There is a negative ROI associated with a bad app, and not just in terms of the development and marketing dollars burned.

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

#183

Post by angryasian »

epochwolf wrote: post #158
scanr wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be explainable but do you really want to install an app that _could_ keep track of the numbers you call and then send them back to a central server? In this case it is the BBC, so its probably only likely that the british government, the metropolitan police or mi 5/6 would be able to convince them to do it but a whole lot of less scrupulous organisations ask for that permission.

Looks like android needs to fix it's permissions system.

the only difference between ios and android is android tells you the permissions an app requires. All mobile os need their permission systems fixed

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

#184

Post by speik »

lprubin wrote: post #153
wallawe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or DC

or NYC

Offtopic, but I prefer it that way. I hear enough people yammering away all day, I don't need it on my commute as well (I'd be fine with it if they just instituted data, but since when has the MTA ever done anything intelligently?)

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

#185

Post by jff »

lutusp wrote: post #172
youngerdryas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Read the article. The article you've posted conflates jailbreaking with unlocking. As the OP pointed out:

Jailbreaking: getting root on the phone

Unlocking: configuring the phone so it can be used on any cell network

Jailbreaking is still legal.

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

#187

Post by mratzloff »

nsxwolf wrote: post #156
smackfu wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>apparently this is all part of their overall apps strategy or something. Actually, in iOS 6, Apple added a graceful way to handle this case. The site can use a special HTML tag to indicate they have an app available, and that will show a tasteful banner at the top of the Safari screen that can be easily dismissed and that can launch the app, with context of the current page. Much better than some homebrew Javascript…

But site developers still have the option to completely block you from their content when they detect you're using iOS Safari. Which is what so many news sites are doing.

I'm confident when they see a significant traffic drop-off that idiotic behavior will adjust itself.

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

#188

Post by untog »

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…

I'm continually disappointed by the non-proliferation of webapps. The iPhone has hooks enabling you to make it fullscreen, have an app icon, work offline, even control the colour of the status bar... but no-one knows how to use them. And Android doesn't even support them- I thought Google was supposed to be a friend of the web?!

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

#189

Post by svachalek »

im3w1l wrote: post #124
rtpg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paywall is a good point. The current NYT model (pay after N articles, easy to circumvent) is a model I could live with in exchange to high-quality content. The problem is do I really want to pay for 5 different papers? Great example. I used to think of paywalls a good thing (in exchange for less ad bullshit), but now it seems a bit dangerous.

Yes, but you want a discount.

It appears that part of the pricing strategy for online news is to charge so much that your subscribers won't even think of paying for another paper. I thought no one would pay these outrageous rates and the strategy would be DOA, but apparently it's actually been quite successful.

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

#190

Post by jcomis »

epochwolf wrote: post #158
scanr wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be explainable but do you really want to install an app that _could_ keep track of the numbers you call and then send them back to a central server? In this case it is the BBC, so its probably only likely that the british government, the metropolitan police or mi 5/6 would be able to convince them to do it but a whole lot of less scrupulous organisations ask for that permission.

Looks like android needs to fix it's permissions system.

I think Android permissions are probably the best at the moment, because they actually exist, are centrally located, and are easy to read. You won't see any certain permission detail longer than a few sentences. They also are shared, so if you have seen one permission for an app to access your contacts, it will be the same in all apps. Apple requires less permissions disclosure and they can be listed in the app store, or on the developers site.

However, ideally I would like to see the current Android permissions segmented further. Right now they act as a catch all to ensure all bases are covered. This is often way beyond what most apps need and actually use, making users second guess what they are installing (at least, they do for me).

Post reply on HN