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

201–210 of 222 posts

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

#201

Post by corresation »

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.

I continue to believe that most of these completely unnecessary apps are by internal devs who want to hone their skills in what they see is the great new lottery ticket, so they convince their hapless managers that they have to get on the app train. I've dealt with this enough.

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

#202

Post by pasbesoin »

I use a browser that does what I want -- and not what I don't. That includes "lying" to crap Web/Internet properties, as needed.

Or, as I often think of it, withholding information that can or will be used against me.

I prefer to use (and insist upon using) a general purpose computing device, not an "appliance".

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

#203

Post by lutusp »

Gormo wrote: post #193
lutusp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is using a single RSS app for all content feeds not sufficient? Yes, true, but companies can't sell you RSS, it's free in the same way that a browser is free, so that's right out. The basic idea is to take what already exists and is free, and think of a way to capture it and sell it back to people.

Well, iOS does have its "Newsstand" app, which is essentially a reader for paywalled RSS feeds. Still, the standalone apps for every publication that this thread is complaining about are free, too. I don't see paywalls being effective for anything but the most established media properties - NY Times can (sort of) get away with it, but can everyone else? If the propagation of native apps really is because of an "every…

> Still, the standalone apps for every publication that this thread is complaining about are free, too.

We've been discussing their effect, not their cost. If they prevent free exchange of information, then perhaps that's a meaning of "free" worth talking about.

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

#204

Post by tommorris »

speik wrote: post #184
lprubin wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

Actually, London has data on the Underground (wifi) but no mobile signal.

(Okay, you could use Skype or whatever, but I'd expect the latency and reliability of the connection is too shitty for that.)

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

#205

Post by URSpider94 »

jarek wrote: post #198
URSpider94 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're being purposefully obtuse or not. iOS does not allow background downloading, unless your app is part of Newsstand. While it would seem to make sense to make your news delivery app appear in Newsstand, it does come with some trade-offs, most significantly that your app is locked inside the Newsstand shelf and can't be placed in a primary app slot. And, even if your app is in Newsstand, you have…

I'm not being purposefully obtuse. I was not aware of this particular limitation of iOS (and probably numerous others). Permission-controlled background downloading would seem like a reasonable solution to this particular problem to me.

OK, good -- thought I might be taking troll-bait, but in that case, glad I could provide information.

In principle, you're exactly right -- but iOS in particular has been notoriously picky about app sandboxing, and there is a very short list of permissions that apps are allowed to ask for: location, push notification, and I believe now address book access.

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

#206

Post by Gormo »

lutusp wrote: post #203
Gormo wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, iOS does have its "Newsstand" app, which is essentially a reader for paywalled RSS feeds. Still, the standalone apps for every publication that this thread is complaining about are free, too. I don't see paywalls being effective for anything but the most established media properties - NY Times can (sort of) get away with it, but can everyone else? If the propagation of native apps really is because of an "every…

> Still, the standalone apps for every publication that this thread is complaining about are free, too. We've been discussing their effect, not their cost. If they prevent free exchange of information, then perhaps that's a meaning of "free" worth talking about.

That might be one of the manifest effects, but it's arguable as to whether that effect is actually the primary intention of driving users away from web content and toward standalone clients.

I doubt that most of the media sources that are pushing native apps are even thinking about it in these terms; most of it is probably bandwaggoning, and the originators of the phenomena probably just wanted a way of keeping their brand and content visible on the dashboard to avoid "out of site, out of mind".

In all likelihood, the net effect of attempting to shovel users off the web and into native apps is probably detrimental to the bottom line.

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

#207

Post by yareally »

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"

All US Carriers at least allow unlocking as long as you own the phone. Emphasis on own (paid off your contract so you are no longer "renting" it or you paid for it outright). That would include all GSM phones and all Global phones on CDMA based carriers (such as the Galaxy S3 or iPhone 5).

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

#208

Post by mmanfrin »

One of my favorite bars in the city -- a homesy British-style pub out near Laurel Heights -- has fliers asking people to 'check out [their] app' replete with an accompanying QR code.

There is literally zero reason to use it, and I sincerely hope they didn't spend money on it.

It's a great bar, though. Pig and Whistle.

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

#209

Post by u2sonderzug »

I'm just bringing up three points in relation to this article I'm popping out in my lunch break, I know they are rantish - but they are on my mind a lot...

a) Maybe I am missing something, but where is the mobile web app 'store' as a good middle ground for people trying to find mobile versions of sites? So many people have been conditioned out there to think mobile = 'apps' - perhaps a push in this direction would be an idea?

What I seriously dislike about Google search on my phone is it gives me a mish-mash of Web and Mobile results that give a totally inconsistent user experience. For some sites I can get away with using a standard 'big' web view - but for anything generally requiring input, forms, etc - 'conventional' web pages are a serious pain. Try booking a hotel room with one of them.

b) One thing to keep in mind as we get more and more devices (and thats what the hardware manufacturers want us to do right?) I notice the download an app model as not 'scalable' in this way. I can see a future where I have a desktop at my office, a tablet sitting at my office, a phone always in my pocket, a tablet sitting in my bedroom, a laptop at home, a tablet sitting in my kitchen, a tablet sitting in my lounge room, a tv connected to the internet, a tablet that I take out with me when I'm on the road, a tablet kind of device in my car. Do I really want to be downloading, installing and updating apps on every single device? This might sound far fetched today - but I still have computer magazines from about 1990 when 16MB of RAM was US$4000. And I can still remember seeing my first plasma TV for sale for about US$20000 in the late 90's. Prices will continue to drop on these things and people will get more of them - I'm sure of that. But it's already annoying enough to have to sync, install, update apps across two devices right now.

c) I keep hearing that people are calling for native apps in mobile devices for reasons such as they offer a faster user experience, offer more native controls, etc. But I could make the argument that building a desktop version of say, Facebook would offer something faster and look more 'native' than what I currently see in the web. But where is the demand for this? People you are missing out on a beautiful 'glides like butter' Facebook shiny, polished look and feel experience on iOS! Where is there an outcry? I think the only reason HTML5 sucks in most use cases for mobile web is it's just still too slow - but each keynote for a new iPhone I hear about delivers speeds usually 2x of the previous version. Therefore I sometimes think this is a short term problem. I think the web in any form it takes will always take a while to 'be ready - how long did it take Wikipedia to push off the CD-ROM behemoth Encarta?

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

#210

Post by erichocean »

huskyr wrote: post #195
untog wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!

In theory you're right. Unfortunately in practice most webapps better stay in the browser on iOS. The Javascript engine on full-screen webapps is slower than the one in Safari (that's why the previous Facebook app was slow as hell). Aside from that, offline app cache is a PITA to implement. Things have got better though. Web audio works on iOS 6, and Chrome on Android finally delivers a proper browser. I hope in a fe…

The Javascript engine on full-screen webapps is slower than the one in Safari (that's why the previous Facebook app was slow as hell).

Not true[0]. Home-screen web apps use the Nitro engine as of iOS 5. It's only embedded web views (i.e. the Facebook app, Google Chrome on iOS) that don't. FWIW Chrome is my favorite browser on iOS, despite the speed loss.

[0] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/06/ios-5-brings-nitro-spee...

Post reply on HN