101–110 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just because of your incessant, annoying spam on every god damn sent from my iphone. sent from my ipad. yeah, because I care what device you sent me an email from. sent from my desktop computer using firefox.
For the longest time I honestly thought many iPhone users were just complete tools until I found out it was actually a default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just because of your incessant, annoying spam on every god damn sent from my iphone. sent from my ipad. yeah, because I care what device you sent me an email from. sent from my desktop computer using firefox.
Many people do care. It gives context to short emails or emails with errors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no scenario where a mobile app could be superior to the web app?
Of course there are scenarios where the app could be better. That's not the point. The point is that nag screens suck, people strongly dislike them, and if you actually do have a mobile app that's much better than the web app, there are better ways of promoting it. Because here's the thing: when people see a pop up of any kind, they reflexively think "fuck you". And it doesn't take a marketing genius to realize that…
I was just calling out dpe82's absurd absolute statement that they suck because all apps "do little to nothing to add to the content or user experience"... Implying that if they the app did offer substantially more, then it would all somehow be acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The long term push is towards html5 mobile apps period. The only problem is performance (which is improving), immature javascript programming libraries/communities and poor adoption of HTML5 mobile features by the OSes (such as being able to use datepickers and other essential APIs for building apps). That's why native apps are still important. Once the above is figured out, I highly doubt companies will want to pay…
> That's why native apps are still important. Once the above is figured out, I highly doubt companies will want to pay to develop on 2-3 different codebases in different programming languages than their website, to support native apps. But that's the thing: we're talking about forums and news sites here. Mobile browsers are perfectly capable of rendering news, blogs and forums as fast as you'd ever need. Companies ar…
Fscking Tapatalk. I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever install your app, even if it scratches my back. Ever; just because of your incessant, annoying spam on every god damn forum I ever go to. Give me a global opt-out. I can't wait to get over this hard-on for native apps. ABC, you too, for god's sake, I clicked on a random news story, I don't need your app.
> just because of your incessant, annoying spam on every god damn sent from my iphone. sent from my ipad. yeah, because I care what device you sent me an email from. sent from my desktop computer using firefox.
(Regarding most CRUD native apps)
Just don't install the app and the hype will soon be gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better explanation is that apps are simply the fashion right now. Everybody and their brother doesn't need a web page any more than they need an app.
Another possibility is that companies think it would be easier to monetize apps than web pages. If you take ads from a typical ad network and put them in a mobile web page, the page probably will look terrible, and a lot of people have ad blockers in their browsers anyway. (Mobile Firefox recommends AdBlock in its home screen.) A lot of mobile apps, on the other hand, have ads that cannot be removed except by rooting…
I think we're both right: companies probably do believe they'll be better able to monetize an app than a web site, but they're probably wrong, and they probably think that for faddish reasons.