Hacker News Reader

Comment by potamic | Hacker News Reader

At what point does it make sense to simply use the web for this? This is what the web was meant for, to enable standardized, dumb clients to consume content from any provider. What we have today is a wonderful architecture and a solid set of standards that is the result of over 20 years of evolution. As a user, there is not much I haven't been able to do on the web, that I do on mobile apps. Why do companies insist on the apps model, even when it causes them so much pain as to reinvent the web? Is the performance or user experience over web really that bad, even in this day and age to warrant shipping a 100MB package to the user? Or are there some nefarious gains or access to privileged information to be had by having your app installed on the user's device that the browser sandbox typically safe guards against?

View on HN

Web still isn’t optimal for mobile interactions: layout, fonts, scrolling, performance, etc…

Their solution seems somewhat specific to their needs. Sections and screens aren’t the right abstractions for many other kinds of apps.

May still be right for them since for big companies percentage improvements are worthwhile doing and maintaining.

How could web made to be more optimal?

Optimal is a superlative, not a comparative, so "more optimal" is a non sequitir.

My opinion is that the web will never be the optimal user experience, although it offers enormous benefits in ubiquity and ease of access. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the ux of the web up the limits of security, but native solutions will always have a UX edge.

The web is optimal for things that native apps can never match, but ux is not one of those things.

XKCD has an appropriate comic for this: https://xkcd.com/1367/

I too am a big promoter of that a lot of "apps" can be done with web technologies.

Early on I was interested in PhoneGap/cordova ecosystem and one interesting quote that floated around was that users don't care what the technology is, as long as it is fast.

My gut feeling is performance on native applications is "easier" whereas us web developers are butchering a glorified document to behave like an interactive application.

Regardless, I still find the web a lot of fun. Which is why I build simple apps: https://morsecode.tools/

Web apps on mobile are ugly, slow, and glitchy with few exceptions unless they simply display a document in which case there is no need to build an app.

The amount of silliness that companies go through to avoid writing native, well-performing apps on basically 3 platforms for relatively simple applications is quite impressive.

I have used airbnb, I would never install an airbnb app.

airbnb is really the stereotypical example of an application that most people will not download a native version of because nobody likes downloading a native version of an application that they only need to run right now for a couple minutes.

I could see an app being useful for notifications when a often booked, popular location comes available during a timeframe that the user selected. Or providing an immersive experience for viewing the layout of the rental and areas outside the rental, for example.

Unfortunately, Airbnb would rather geek out on a silly framework that accomplishes little more than avoiding the implementation of 2 relatively simple native apps and making it harder for new developers to come online.

For airbnb hosts, the app solution makes sense.

I agree - for hosts I would make an app. for clients website. However I might think I could reuse code between client and host and then still make just a website thinking "the hosts need us so they will just have to lump it."

Are you extrapolating your own opinions to that of the masses? Many non technical people I know won’t use anything that isn’t an app on their phones.

You’d think Airbnb folks would be in a better position than either of us to know about those usage patterns.

Man, it's almost like you're saying progressive web apps need to be taken more seriously.

Sarcasm aside, I have used the Starbucks PWA and it's counterparty mobile app. PWA felt snappier and had better load times.

So I don't buy the thought that the web is somehow inferior. It just has Apple working against it because it threatens the app store model.

That aside, I'm excited for Capicitor 3 and what it will mean at the native runtime level for creating web native experiences.

> Web apps on mobile are ugly, slow, and glitchy with few exceptions unless they simply display a document in which case there is no need to build an app.

So basically exactly the same as the average app then? There's more than one way to make an ugly, slow, and glitchy experience.

Yes, the sad part is the nice mobile web experiences are often exceptions.

That's only for lack of good tech — everyone doing it before was going against the grain.

That day is over.

Having a great PWA is now the default behavior for any half-technical company.

They don’t have to be. It’s entirely a function of your discipline and care in maintaining and building out your web client.

Have worked on several reasonably complex sites that maintained 60fps on mobile web.

The description of Airbnb's system feels a bit like compiled HTML with some logic glued on top to make things act like JS.

Interesting tool but audio seems to be broken on the iPhone. Says transmitting with no audio (full volume)

Hrm, had an issue with when iPhone's were on silent mode, but that is resolved now.

Is your silent switch on?

Unfortunately, at the moment, I can only test on the iOS Simulator.

>XKCD has an appropriate comic for this

hasn't really invented webpages because the apps could still be vetted through an app store.

An app with it's own icon and login is a much more "sticky" presence than a web page that the user must navigate to. It can add notices and alerts to the phone.

> At what point does it make sense to simply use the web for this?

You would basically end up implementing the exact same thing anyway - after all, Airbnb's implementation also targets web.

Airbnb wants, and has, a fairly interaction-rich interface, especially with Search/Filters, and then the rest of the booking flow, which means there's a lot you need to render on the frontend in Javascript.

1) easier to maintain state 2) store arbitrary amounts of data 3) static assets are served just on download/updates 4) loads a lot faster 5) smoother UI (this requires effort I admit) 6) background network usage (browser will put a tab to sleep when you navigate away)

> Is the performance or user experience over web really that bad, even in this day and age to warrant shipping a 100MB package to the user?

On slow networks (mobile) it is really frequently bad due to the large number of URL's (mostly trackers) that must be loaded. Some web pages require many MB's just to display a simple page. In theory this approach could be faster because you could multiplex data over a limited number of TCP connections, so you can avoid the latency that is caused by setting up a lot of new connections. But they don't seem to use this approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com