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

I Don't Want Your Fucking App

idontwantyourfuckingapp.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 270 posts

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#181

Post by gearoidoc »

rdale wrote: post #127
gearoidoc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. "It's starving people rioting to reclaim common land taken as 'enclosures' by the rich people." == Complaining about having to click a cancel button on a mobile browser.

You've completely missed the point. At the moment we have a free web and we can use a variety of browsers to access it. If instead we can only access the web via apps and those app are controlled by the likes of Apple or Google, then we don't have a free web anymore. Maybe today the apps are free (as in beer), but maybe tomorrow they won't be. We would no longer be in charge and the web would have been appropriated b…

Huh? The original post wasn't about bringing a walled garden approach to the web; it was about modals encouraging visitors to download an app.

I don't think you need to worry about only accessing the web via apps - it just won't happen.

FWIW, I abhor the popups in question but I can understand a company's decision to add them to their site. However, the way to stop this pattern is by showing decision makers statistics that prove they don't work (if that is true of course). The blog in question just seems like one big hissy fit - not the most convincing of arguments.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#182

Post by laureny »

dmd wrote: post #66
laureny wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as an American, I find my countrymen (oh crap, should that be countrypersons?!) are indeed eye-rollingly oversensitive about profanity and political correctness in general. I know it sounds trite, but it's mostly about the children. I couldn't care less about people dropping F bombs around me (although it does taint my opinion of them if it's done for no particular reason), but the less kids hear the word, the more…

> it's mostly about the children > it is not to be used lightly See: "begging the question".

I don't think you really understand what "begging the question" means because these two excerpts are nowhere near doing that.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#183

Post by tomjen3 »

millerm wrote: post #43

I am with you, and I don't mind the harshness of the title. It explains exactly how I feel. This "download our app" trend has abolutely been ruining my browsing experience on my phone and tablets. I've used other browsers that allow user agent hacks, but there are just too many other factors that we developers can use to determine the hardware the user is using. Perhaps we need a way to create a new blacklist of anno…

Onswipe.

Yeah that is another company that has decided to make world a worse place. What I can't understand in how they got so many content owners to ruin their websites by using their crap.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#184

Post by tomjen3 »

brudgers wrote: post #121
dreamfactory wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps will give you a few more obscure datapoints that web analytics won't but I'll bet that very few companies actually use them. I doubt many even study bounce rates when they present you with these app download modals.

By "obscure datapoints" are you referring to my contact list and geolocation? Apps can gain access to all sorts of information inaccessible to the browser.

Not without getting additional permissions, they can't. And If the daily mail wants to access my contacts, they can go to hell.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#185

Post by rdale »

shocks wrote: post #168
rdale wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for explaining the jokes to us.

You're one of the luck few of us that actually understand the joke. There is a very large portion of people in this thread that do not understand the swearing and are simply 'offended' by fuck all and are throwing their toys out of the pram because of a few fucking words. Simply put, in this instance it is acceptable to explain the joke because a large percentage of people are pathetic fuckwads.

You don't need to be an native english speaker to understand what the site is about - it is mostly pictures. We don't need some 'pompous twat' (as we say in the UK) explaining blindly obvious stuff in pretentious language.

And defending the Daily Mail newspaper to top it all (they are a poisonous bunch of scumbags in case any non-UK people don't know it).

I think the idea was to start a conversation. A conversation about why so many companies are thrusting these stupid apps on you. The idea was most certainly not to start a conversation about swearing, which is what 90% of the comments seem to be about.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#186

Post by tomjen3 »

incision wrote: post #29

I have at least one anecdotal perspective on app proliferation. Currently, I'm struggling with higher-ups who have decided that we must have apps. They don't know what these apps will do or who will use them, simply that we have to start pushing out apps because, well - others have apps. Therefore, we must have apps too. They don't seem to care that the apps they envy have dismal reviews and download stats, that we l…

This is exactly how I imagine most big companies operate, and why I am not afraid of any of them.

Anyway to you: update the CSS to work with a mobile site, wrap the thing in javascript that fetches the HTML of the target of the webserver and put it in a full iframe. Wrap that in PhoneGap and be a hero.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#187

Post by dmd »

chris_j wrote: post #135
dmd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's mostly about the children > it is not to be used lightly See: "begging the question".

I don't understand what you mean. Would you mind expanding on that?

Sure.

From http://begthequestion.info/ :

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

laureny is claiming that it's "about the children", but the implicit assumption there is that there's something wrong with cursing in the first place. laureny assumes "it is not to be used lightly" and that children need to understand this - but that's exactly the item under discussion.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#188

Post by dreamfactory »

brudgers wrote: post #121
dreamfactory wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps will give you a few more obscure datapoints that web analytics won't but I'll bet that very few companies actually use them. I doubt many even study bounce rates when they present you with these app download modals.

By "obscure datapoints" are you referring to my contact list and geolocation? Apps can gain access to all sorts of information inaccessible to the browser.

I was thinking more device orientation/velocity/camera etc Geo is available on web, and SSO via fb etc allow virality through contact lists in much the same way as an app (I think). I guess the biggest reason why a business should get you to install an app is push messaging (though I guess that could be approximated with email).

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#189

Post by tomjen3 »

Nux wrote: post #131

ZOMG! Nice blog entry! Lots of steam released. :D And now the question: why do people build apps and shove it down other people's throat? Most of what they do can be done via a ("mobile") web site. Hell! Most of them are useless without internet connectivity anyway! So why not make a great web site and just let people bookmark it?!

Cause menagement is stupid (as always) and wants an app because all the other children^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h/companies have one.

Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App

#190

Post by nollidge »

reddit_clone wrote: post #125
jaynos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American here. His colorful use of language sounds exactly like the thoughts in my head when I can't access a mobile site.

Imo, GP is right. A couple of well placed F-Words in an article do make your feeling apparent. Dozen swear words per paragraph is distracting. Even in real life nobody swears that much! (May be sailors do. I have never met one personally).

I fucking do, if I'm fucking pissed the fuck off about some fucking thing or another.
Post reply on HN