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

211–220 of 222 posts

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

#211

Post by erichocean »

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…

We're solving that by actually having an app "installer" on the web page. It looks and feels like the App Store, and you "tap to install" just like you would a normal app.

We do actually download and stash most web resources, to speed up load times, so it's not completely window dressing. Our app is designed to be added to the Home Screen, but it also runs inside Safari or Chrome just fine.

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

#212

Post by ttflee »

rtpg wrote: post #21
lutusp wrote: post #2

It's a strategy to dismantle the Web, which had the "disadvantage" of being simultaneously free and a level playing field, and replacing it with a loose network of fiefdoms, each a walled garden (a term often used to describe Apple in its entirety). Most of these apps are advertising delivery mechanisms masquerading as utilities. Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to ano…

> 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. There is certainly a "walled garden" problem on iOS, with all the jailbroken nonsense linked to it, but on Android (don't know about MS phones) I can run whatever I want. The app store is just curation, not limitating. Granted there…

> but on Android (don't know about MS phones) I can run whatever I want.

Yeah, you need to install some other 'security app' that is essentially another rogue/thief to defend against any other burglar.

This has happened and is still happening in China where the Google Play is blocked and a number of 3rd party markets exist and thrive. Even a social network app would bother to remind you upgrading some other apps you have installed. Who knows who is stealing what?

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

#213

Post by krichman »

Zak wrote: post #161
mkr-hn wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe because it is a government-granted monopoly there must be regulation to introduce competition or the customers will be taken advantage of (especially with something like internet which should be regulated as a utility in the first place).

Like your case in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe where they are required to lease the "last mile" at a reasonable price. Internet connections in countries with these regulations are much faster and the charges are less compared to the USA.

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

#215

Post by lutusp »

Gormo wrote: post #206
lutusp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media.

The motive for creating dedicated apps should seem obvious -- it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences, each with a loyal (or trapped) following. The classic example is Facebook -- people could have social media with a browser in a much less structured way, but people prefer Facebook, even though it is a highly structured, separate environment, one in which Mark Zuckerberg gets to decide what experience you have.

Because of Facebook's success, many other companies want some version of the same structure -- a controlled version of web browsing, separate from the public kind.

> 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.

If that were true, people would avoid it (and Facebook would fail). But it's not true, and Web metrics support the idea that a dedicated app is a more efficient way to generate profits than waiting for people to visit your public Web site.

> ... to avoid "out of site, out of mind".

Cute pun on "out of sight, out of mind".

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

#216

Post by [deleted] »

Gormo wrote: post #206
lutusp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by paigalhaes »

wmil wrote: post #75
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.

They're popular with people who take the subway. Think about it, you're sitting there for half an hour with no service. An app that pre-downloads all of a newspaper's stories is handy and easy to use.

well, at least in Lisbon (Portugal) we have GMS/UMTS coverage inside the subway (Metro) since 2006 :)

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

#218

Post by BenSS »

koralatov wrote: post #71
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.

In most cases, I find the apps are actually worse than using the browser. A lot of them are little more than branded Webkit wrappers, with $SITENAME in a coloured bar across the top. If you're going to force me to use an app, it needs to offer some really concrete advantages over the site, and should actually act like an app. One simple win would be a global text resize setting -- give me the option to increase, or d…

There's actually a submission rule for iOS that says an app shouldn't be just a web view for one site and no extra features. It's frustrating that the AppStore rules are often not enforced consistently.

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

#219

Post by hilko »

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.

I've never tried this feature as it requires location services, but doesn't Instapaper offer exactly that? Location-based automatic downloading of new articles?

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

#220

Post by IamDov »

krichman wrote: post #213
Zak wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe because it is a government-granted monopoly there must be regulation to introduce competition or the customers will be taken advantage of (especially with something like internet which should be regulated as a utility in the first place). Like your case in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe where they are required to lease the "last mile" at a reasonable price. Internet connections in countries with these reg…

I wrote that article (http://internetlawforbusinesses.com/2013/01/31/how-your-cell...), and while that does not necessarily make me an authority (certainly not in my own opinion), I endorse your points above - both of them.

In the US, we HAD a history of controlling monopolies and oligopolies carefully - the trust-busting era, the steel breakup, the comparatively recent AT&T breakup - but the government has largely abdicated any significant role here. The notable exception was the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger, which, ironically, probably would have actually helped improve technology and push down prices because both of those carriers are moving into the prepaid/pay as you go space aggressively. Unfortunately, both also use GSM band technology...

With respect to unlocking, however, I can't fathom why the device manufacturers, particularly Google/Motorola Mobility, don't play the adults here. They have more to gain from impressing the end-consumer than making time with carriers. It has to be more expensive for manufacturers to create several different versions of the same device for different carriers. In many cases, these are all but different devices - not the same radios, not the same functions, often not even the same processors. If these manufacturers made their flagship devices with both CDMA and GSM radios operating on all common bands (deactivated or not, as need may be), they would benefit from economies of scale, lowering their costs and allowing the devices to sell, unlocked, at lower costs. This would make sales directly to end-consumers more realistic, which would FORCE the carriers to improve their service, in order to bring people into their no longer walled gardens. That would force improvements in speed, price, and quality.

Right now, I guess, manufacturers benefit from advertising done by the carriers, but they also suffer from the walled garden and loss of economies of scale. I have no way of knowing which is worth more to them, but we have yet to see a true, universal, unlocked device from a carrier. We can tweak world CDMA phones to "work" on GSM networks, but not too well so far.

Post reply on HN