Hacker News Reader

Comment by blizkreeg | Hacker News Reader

By shutting it down, Apple would make a huge mistake and literally walk back into the past. I can't imagine that happening. As it is, it's becoming difficult for app developers to get noticed and grow and as chat-based interfaces become more powerful, I in fact don't see a bright future for "downloaded" apps - the way installed software was upended by the web for most use cases.

View on HN

From my point of view web versions of applications generally offer a worse experience compared to the native desktop versions that have to be installed.

I suppose the closer the browser gets to just being an operating system running in a pseudo-virtual-machine the less crappy the non-desktop-experience will become. On the other hand we're already approaching absurd levels of JS required as a download for some web sites. I could easily envision, in some dystopian future, a scenario where hundreds of MB (compressed) of JavaScript or more are required for an especially loathesome resource eating web "app".

Is it really better to have to download 10s or 100s of MB of JS every time (yes, yes, caching helps) you want to use an application instead of a one-time install of a couple of GB?

Edit for clarity: I'm responding to the part of your comment about web apps "eating" the install-based model of desktop apps, specifically, not to the broader topic of mobile apps (as clearly there's a difference in the model, packaging of applications, etc. there).

Except it's not a one time download - every damn update has you downloading the whole mobile app again, which is a devastating multiplier.

JS isn't nearly as offensive as those exaggerated numbers by comparison

Not a fair comparison. Those updates can happen in the background (when in another app, when you're asleep, etc.), and most apps will continue to operate without being updated.

Nothing more irritating then being forced to update / download content when you need to go and quickly do something in an app.

the few apps I care about (banking, for example), always force a full update, and generally right when I need to use the app. Old version doesn't work anymore, and I have to reinstall a new one. And... I've never seen mobile apps update in the background or while I'm asleep. I have to explicitly authorize (generally with the clunky password input box) the new update. Every. Single. Time.

I don't seem to have this trouble. My apps update maybe once a week on average. The notifications always seem to pop up over night while I sleep. When I wake up I simply accept the updates and make my breakfast or shower while the updates occur. I haven't spent time waiting on an update when I needed the app right then in so long I can't remember the last time it was.

With JS they have to download a new version too (now that we're compiling javascript), and not in the background but when they want to run the app.

> I suppose the closer the browser gets to just being an operating system running in a pseudo-virtual-machine the less crappy the non-desktop-experience will become.

No- the crappier your computing experience will become, which is already happening.

Well in general I'd agree. I'm unconvinced that having to download tons of javascript regularly because everything is in-browser (and provides a generally inferior experience, in my view) is a superior model to having to download once and update occasionally a desktop/mobile install.

However there is significant effort being made in making these browsers better, so perhaps something will improve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com