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

Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

atrium.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 587 posts

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#331

Post by mkl »

tempestn wrote: post #314

This has always been our philosophy with AutoTempest.com. We do pretty regularly get requests to build an app though, although none of the people asking for it have had an answer to the question, "What are you looking for from an app version that the website doesn't currently offer?" So, at least so far I've decided it makes more sense to focus resources on the website. I do occasionally wonder if I'm passing up on a…

Could it be as simple as an icon on the home screen and separate entry in app switcher?

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#332

Post by greglindahl »

ecp9 wrote: post #202
vesak wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. Do you think that web apps are better in that regard?

On the web I can install ublock origin, privacybadger, and a vpn. Even if you ignore the phone's personal data aspect that's a 99% improvement over mobile.

I can easily put an anti-tracking filter on my phone's web browser. Can't easily do the thing for apps.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#333

Post by taco_emoji »

wvenable wrote: post #247
jermaustin1 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it that makes you actually sign up for a service?

Either I'm already certain or it's necessity/desperation. If I'm actively looking for an certain type of application I will usually dedicate half a day to sign up for bunch of different apps all at once. It's pretty time consuming and I'm usually left disappointed. I will then spend the next half a day trying to remove myself from them all.

Then 6 months later one of those app companies send you an email update, by which point you've forgotten what they do, and yet they give you no hint of what the app is in said email.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#334

Post by ph0rque »

enraged_camel wrote: post #159
jermaustin1 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this concept. Using the smart phone more like a PDA than a tiny laptop. What are your 10 core apps if you don't mind sharing?

For me: Personal Capital (finance), WhatsApp, Slack, Overcast (podcasts), Kindle, Dark Sky (hyper accurate weather app), Google Authenticator, Lyft, RENPHO (my smart scale’s app), 1Password Everything else is very situational and totally optional.

Interesting... googled Dark Sky, tried out their web app, will probably download the mobile app. The original article's thesis seems to be on to something :)

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#335

Post by lowercased »

xd1936 wrote: post #312
oftenwrong wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies saddle their mobile web experience with excessive animations, gobs of dynamic elements, screen-hogging navigation bars/sharing buttons/overlays, poorly-implemented infinite scrolling, etc, etc... and then they conclude that mobile web sites are bad and native apps are good. People have forgotten that you can build a website that isn't a user-hostile SPA train-wreck.

Amen. Twitter[1] and Starbucks[2] have both built gorgeous PWAs in the last couple of years that are perfect replacements for 98% of a native app's functionality. It can be done, people! 1. https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-sourc... 2. https://twitter.com/davidbrunelle/status/905931990444244995

Done in-house, I'd bet, and that's another disconnect to overcome.

Outsourcing website and/or mobile dev to external company, the focus is often more going to be on whizbangflashy, vs sleek/slim/fast/simple, to justify whatever budget they're getting.

I do find that I end up using the mobile web client for twitter as often as i do the native client. It's not much in either case, but the mobile web client is generally 'good enough' such that if that's where I land, I don't feel a need to jump to the native client.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#336

Post by taco_emoji »

mbesto wrote: post #275
endorphone wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking to this discussion, not the submitted article. Sure, start with a web app (though it really depends on the target -- if the web app yields a sub-standard interface, performance, or utility it's a dead end) with hopes of building an app when you have an established base. However in this discussion there are a lot of people who are arguing from the perspective of a world that doesn't exist, based upon the…

> I'm speaking to this discussion, not the submitted article. Precisely my point. That's not what the OP was saying. Per their comment: to get people to install your app just to try it out. > based upon the same "this changes everything" argument we've heard every year. Did we read the same comment? Where did the OP write "this changes everything"?

You're using OP to mean "the root-level HN comment" where @endorphone thought you meant TFA.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#337

Post by twostoned »

vertexFarm wrote: post #242
casper345 wrote: post #111

80% of apps are uninstalled in the first 10min (especially if they ask for information or creating an account). Once uninstalled very unlikely they will ever install again. In my dev shop, I always advise clients to look into website MVP over apps unless IT IS CRITICAL to the functionality. Websites can always bring back ppl who were initially uninterested. Faster development/instant updates. Better tracking and UX a…

Thank you! I personally think that mobile web and app design has been one of the greatest atrocities in tech. Not only is it trash on mobile, it's spread and made lots of sites trash on desktop as well because people seek a one-size-fits-none solution. I personally go by the rule that if your service can work as a website, it should be a website. Not ever a standalone app unless there are important requirements which…

I love that your mom is a VIM users. That caught me off guard and I lol'd. My mom: not a vim user (or emacs for that matter)

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#338

Post by mkl »

leadingthenet wrote: post #328
jdietrich wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For one, you have a chance of actually finding quality native apps. Really? I can't recall ever finding a useful app through the app store. It's so littered with junk apps and deceptive copycats that discovery is a miserable experience.

Seriously?! Check out Things 3, Overcast, or Timepage (and Actions) by Moleskine. You don’t recall EVER finding a useful app?

If we follow your suggestions we're finding apps through third-party recommendations, not through an app store.

I have found useful apps through a store, but it does often involve sifting through a lot of misleading junk.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#339

Post by muzani »

Android actually covers many of the "pros" listed here. It's cheap and fast to deploy. It's also easier to SEO an Android app than a website, from my experience. Mobile searches will turn up your app. Customer acquisition cost can also be very low.

I'll add one other reason to use apps - it's best suited for things that happen as a kind of habit. For example a meditation app or a to do list is going to be more successful as an app than site.

Re: Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App

#340

Post by da_chicken »

geezerjay wrote: post #274
da_chicken wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I don't give them permission to run code on my device arbitrarily and perpetually. Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all?

> Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all? HN essentially is a service that provides only a couple of text views to list and read submittions and their discussions, and requires zero processing or interaction. That's hardly a challenging problem that requires a fat client. If however we were discussing an application that required sign…

> That's hardly a challenging problem that requires a fat client.

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that making a fat client for HN isn't necessary; that's completely beside the point. You're looking for reasons to ignore the stated premise of an analogy rather than accepting that the premise would be true.

It's like this. Say you were beginning to explain how network services work with an anecdote: "Say you need to go to the market to get a carton of milk." Suddenly your listener stops you and says, "But I don't like milk."

If your response to the above paragraph is, "But I don't know how network services work," then, congratulations, you can look forward to an exciting career in either comedy or politics, depending on whether or not you were serious.

Post reply on HN