But when the experience of the app surpasses the web, it does so by such a stretch that when I start the web version on my desktop I close it again and take out my iPad. For me a company definitely only takes it's customers serious if they have smooth native apps as well as a smooth responsive web experience.
_This comment sent using Yarn for HN_
But this technical consideration could be trumped by business considerations: making people pay for "mere websites" is more difficult than making them pay for apps, and if ad blocking really becomes mainstream, this could be enough reason for producers of even simple content to prefer apps - where they can have their free version with ads without having to worry about blockers.
For now, it's "soft" paywalls - they're still indexable by Google, and visible if you come from there.
I'm afraid that, in the near future, they could really become accessible only to those who can pay. And the quality of the free internet would instantly drop many notches.
Additionally a large class of top phone apps is messaging, which has always been apps even on desktop: Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat, Skype etc.
Also, why would I use maps.google.com on my phone instead of one click Google Maps app? Seems like torture to me.
So now I have to "upgrade" my browser (which is basically almost a VM) that uses 1GB of RAM to run that To-do app over a series of tubes which are metered and analysed.
We've really done some progress here yeah.
It's pretty great that this happened. I'm so sick of using these pesky desktop applications. Just remind me, which web apps can I use for the following?
-Audio production
-3D animation
-Video editing
-CAD design
-Writing/debugging software
3D animation: https://clara.io/
Video Editing: https://www.wevideo.com/
CAD design: https://www.tinkercad.com/
Writing/debugging software: https://codenvy.com/
Now of course I expect we'll here the "but it misses feature X". I'm sure that's true. Next, someone will point out that generally, 80% of people don't need feature X, and the fact that it is online means it is many times more accessible. We've seen this over and over again.
Remember when everyone thought web based email couldn't possibly work for them because of feature Z? I'm sure that's still true, for a few people.
So can we skip that whole discussion?
But I don't know if the message we should get out of this is that the web wins, or than new ways of distributing functionality to more people cheaper wins.
> Remember when everyone thought web based email couldn't possibly work for them because of feature Z?
No, I've always used web-based email clients. Did a software developer really say this?
A modern desktop client is much better than a modern webmail client when it's available. It's interesting that desktop clients have been continualy improving, while web clients have been continualy getting worse.
Anyway, both have their use.
They are built with flash, which is NOT what I would call using web techs. The fact that you couldn't tell the difference is interesting. Despite all the flash hate, there are valid use cases for it.
Some areas are completely swallowed. In the 90s it wouldn't have been strange to have a native application for the weather, or to browse a digital encyclopedia. Those areas are now only on the web.
Most people with a phone?
How many people aside from specialists use the browser as their main "app"?
How many people use webmail, search and read info, use facebook/twitter, order stuff, use online map, look at internet junk?
The browser is the number one app on desktop without a doubt. The flexibility it offers is nothing short of incredible. You can cite specialist apps all you like, it doesn't change the fact that those apps are a niche right now on the desktop.
- Word Processing
- Spreadsheets
- Slideshows
And Google Apps hasn't displaced Office by and measure. Companies are still depending on and using standard SOE stacks which includes Office.
Media consumption v media creation I think is the distinct line that need to be crossed before a native app makes a whole lot of sense.
The thing is all those things will eventually migrate to the web. Right now the web has so much potential and those pieces of software have a small market and that market is pretty saturated.
Once we do everything we can do with the web then we will move into domains that have incumbents
I would say Facebook is much more useful to society then Audio Production.
I don't share the excitement about bringing this bullshit to apps. Maybe the web will improve: as websites become more sophisticated, customers will increase their expectations and start demanding better treatment. But this would require reversing the current trend.
That's a bizarre value judgment to make, but social apps have different technical needs from multimedia apps:
Bandwidth to the cloud will never beat bandwidth to the local disk. And RAM.
This is completely different on an iPhone 6, Galaxy S6, Nexus 6...
On my devices, including desktop, web is for reading and watching movies.
If there is an application for what I am trying to do, it will be used instead.