galistoca

People keep saying "admire the transparency", "appreciate the transparency", but really what's the point? Who is the "transparency" for?

I really couldn't care less about my salary being made public to the world, all I care about is working on something I believe in.

Extreme transparency has nothing to do with their business growth and it will probably come back to haunt them later, I don't know why they're going so far as to do all this.

Doing business is extremely hard on its own, why complicate matters and expose private details to the public, which can and probably will at some point be used against you? I mean even on this thread people nitpick and gossip about every single details. And it would be a lie to say they care 0% about these things. If they do care, it just means less time worrying about their core business.

I am quite sure you're objectively wrong about snapchat userbase and their user behavior.

Also, not sure what your point is with regards to my comment. Maybe my point wasn't clear. My point was just because something doesn't directly generate profit doesn't mean it's useless, since it can act as a critical strategic asset to another company. Youtube was an excellent acquisition for Google despite the fact that it's not so good in terms of profit. Tumblr could have been something like that for Yahoo, except that there were many things wrong with Yahoo itself and the vision couldn't be realized.

If you're talking about profits, youtube wasn't a good company before the acquisition, and it still isn't. But it is an important company.

What would you call him then? 30-something?

I'm disgusted at how this publication is using a click bait title to describe an otherwise perfectly fine startup, for their own pageviews. No journalistic integrity whatsoever.

Yes

The fact that you're saying "it's free because we no longer need to generate revenue" is exactly the problem. It means you didn't even think this through. If you had, your answer would be different.

It's just like Twitter saying "We don't need to generate revenue directly from our API and that's why we're opening it all up because what's good for the community is what's good for us!", except that this isn't 2006 and everyone knows better.

I agree, but I think that's Android's problem. I found that it's janky no matter what you use. I first thought it was the webview thing and built a native java program, but it isn't so much better. I honestly don't understand how most Android users cope with this.

Using "WebView" doesn't just mean performance issues. It's a matter of choosing the very stack itself. You're starting out with browser as your base. There are many things that come with that decision.

Also that Bitcoin app is a bad example because it's a very simple app.

To be clear, I have programmed in both native ios, ionic and native android. I'm primarily a iOS developer so had no idea how Android worked when I first tried building an android app, so when I first tried my "cross platform" app on an android phone I was shocked to find out there are so many details that make it feel NOT native. iOS and Android have very different UI and you need to build for those experiences if you want to really optimize for user experience. It's not just a matter of performance. That's why I learned java to build natively.

Lastly, in this and age, why not just learn react native instead of boasting about how still using web browser is good enough? You really have no excuse here if your reasoning is that you want to use web technology to build native apps.

WebViews do suck on mobile and it's not a myth. People talk about how it's catching up but that's the problem: it will be a perpetual "catching up" game, forever. Devices are built with proprietary technologies and they will forever keep adding new features. HTML is a standard which can only progress through a long process of debate and agreement. They will probably end up implementing only those features that are at the intersection of Android and iOS feature sets.

The title of this post is a lie. What the OP is saying is "It sucks but what are we gonna do? Hire more native developers for all platforms?". I don't know how that's a "myth debunking" for "webviews suck".

Really cool, how is it unique in terms of what it can do, compared to a regular web browser?

More like "Apple does a PR piece to convince developers that everyone else is being wooed so they should be wooed too". I miss the days when Apple used to generate hype simply based on great product, instead of artificial pieces like this.

Unless there's a legitimate reason for subscription (if it's cloud based and deals with private content) the law of supply and demand will kick in, which means it will work for these particular types of apps but won't work for others because there's always going to be a competitor who will provide the same service for free.

Yeah but instead transform the modal into something more.. invisible..

Wow it's amazing how this post became #1 on front page, just based on criticism, no sarcasm. I guess it is true that all press is good press.

yup, that's what jira does.

Maybe you didn't get the memo but MS is not an OS company anymore (at least their top priority isn't). Everyone knows desktop platform has been commoditized by the Web--you can do pretty much anything through the web interface, and increasingly so as the computer processing powers go up.

They've been pretty clear about this new direction if you read the articles, MS is a productivity company. That's why they're building all these productivity apps on iOS and android.

it is true but both trello and this app is based on Kanban, which tons of other productivity tools like Jira implement so I guess it can't be blamed too much

Maybe you should go back and read again.

> Even if Chrome had push notification on iOS

This is what I said. And this applies to rest of the paragraph. Also open standard has absolutely nothing to do with this, and that was exactly my point. You guys think just because it's open standard it's all open and good, but my point was it is not. The reality is Google and Apple are effectively duopoly when it comes to anything push notification related (GCM is the gatekeeper for Android, APNS is the gatekeeper for iOS). So it doesn't matter if a technology is open standard, it wouldn't even matter if it was completely open source. The reality is your push MUST go through either Apple or Google.

For some reason I feel like I have become some sort of FB defender, but I am not. Just to be clear, I am not a fan of FB. I even completely got rid of my FB account a year ago because I got sick of fake interactions on the site and have never looked back. I am happy with communicating with close people just via text and other special purpose communication apps.

That said, the reasons you mention are pretty edge cases. Instead of just hating on it, just stop and think about it for a moment without prejudice. When you email someone you don't expect them to read it immediately, but when you send a text you at least expect them to know they received something, no? (If you say no to this, I really have nothing else to say anymore, you would be just denying the reality) That's what Facebook wants to be. They're competing with SMS, not email.

Tell me what's factually incorrect about "Chrome doesn't support push on iOS". Want me to spell it out for you? Here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34588506/ios-web-notifica...

I am amazed how many people on this thread are attacking me saying "Android Chrome supports push notification" when I said "Chrome doesn't support push on iOS". Are you even listening to what I say?

Why do people keep saying "Chrome supports push on Android" to criticize my comment which says "iOS chrome doesn't support push"? It feels like talking to a wall almost.

Please read my other comments on this thread. Basically just because Android supports it doesn't mean it's all good since iOS doesn't. Also the "open web" you think you have on Chrome is not really that open as you think if you think about the entire mobile ecosystem landscape.

I keep saying this in every comment I made on this thread, but I'm talking about the entire mobile ecosystem. Who cares if Android Chrome supports it, iOS doesn't. Which means it's not a 100% coverage. Just by letting this happen you are providing a low quality service to not just the iOS users but also the Android users, since there will be an assumption that the recipient doesn't always get the message in realtime. If you want to send that kind of messages, there is always email. Messaging apps are built on assumptions that people know the other person receives push immediately.

I'll assume, by Chrome you mean desktop Chrome. This is irrelevant to my comment. I was specifically talking about realtime push notifications via mobile devices. Also remember that your preference is just your preference, many people would want to be able to make sure their messages get seen in realtime. And Facebook probably wants that for their users too. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm just saying it's not an illogical decision. You are free to complain but it would be stupid for Facebook to keep going this way just so they can support the legacy technology.

As far as I know it's not supported on iOS. Even if Chrome had push notification on iOS I can't think of any logical reason to build a push notification inside Chrome if I were Facebook. You think Chrome is open web, but it's not. It's an app built by Google. If Facebook were to depend on Chrome push notification (which by the way doesn't even exist but for the sake of discussion let's say it does hypothetically), it would mean it's depending on Google on both Android and iOS which means when it comes to mobile Facebook MUST go through Google 100% of the time. You may say they can use Firefox, but for the same reason, why would they add one more layer of gatekeeper just to let their users communicate? You need to realize this "open web" concept is not really open anymore when it comes to mobile.

What you described is a "symptom", not a "definition". However let's say that you're correct and think for a second. Where do you pull out this notion that something has to be a technology to be disruptive? Here's the real definition of disruptive: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt There were many cases in history where people came up with disruptive invention, philosophy, business model, or any idea. Anything is disruptive if it renders the previous approach obsolete. Napster was disruptive, but both illegal and a failure. Based on your definition Napster is not at all disruptive. What else would you call it then? Being disruptive is not just about a small number of successful case studies mentioned in Christensen books.

I'm not a FB fanboy or anything, but sometimes it is a good choice to free yourself from legacy tech burden and build for the future. The web (html documents fetched via http requests) were not built with mobile devices in mind, especially websockets. In the mobile era, all messaging is based on push notifications which must go through the device vendor (APNS or GCM), and trying to support the legacy tech in this landscape is just not worth it.

So it sounds like you think you have the "glimpse of the future". Well, nothing is stopping you from doing it RIGHT NOW, instead of posting on HN about how you need money to do anything.

When you think you have a good idea but not working on it, it probably means either: 1. you don't think the idea is good enough to risk your stable life; 2. you are too lazy to do it; 3. you don't want to risk regardless of how great of an idea you think it is.

In every one of these cases, you're not cut out to be a founder--you just can't do the most important part--"then go build it". That's what makes "founders" special, they just do it instead of complaining how it can't be done.

I think it's by design. They're already doing well without the discovery and the lack of discovery is probably one of the key reasons why people like it. Snapchat is more about keeping in touch with people they really care about than some DJ Khaled. In fact a lot of people who first started following DJ Khaled just to see what the hype is all about don't really care anymore, and probably increasingly so as more people start using Snapchat.