Slashdot Mirror


Slashdot Asks: Is the App Boom Over?

Quartz did a story in 2014 in which, citing comScore's data, it noted that most smartphones users download zero apps per month. Two years later, the data from Nomura reveals that the top 15 app publishers saw downloads drop an average of 20% in the United States. While there are exceptions -- Uber and Snapchat continue to attract new users worldwide -- it appears that developers are finding it increasingly difficult to get new people to download and try their apps. Recode reports: But now even the very biggest app publishers are seeing their growth slow down or stop altogether. Most people have all the apps they want and/or need. They're not looking for new ones.What's your take on this?

186 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Everything has an "app" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is a sad rehash of their website. I don't need access to a diluted version of your content SO BAD that I'm going to store an icon for it on my phone. Maybe if people started releasing apps that were AT LEAST as fully functional as their webpages (hopefully more) people would actually download them.

    1. Re:Everything has an "app" by pete6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if the dumb hipster designers would quit dumbing down the UI, making it devoid of useful information.

    2. Re:Everything has an "app" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen !

      "Beautiful", "Apple like", "Clear and Simple" UI for newbies == Useless lack of functionality for regular users.

    3. Re:Everything has an "app" by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Essentially this.

      VERY few websites are so important they get a huge bookmark on my desktop. Not on my main computer, certainly not on a phone that is always starved for screen real estate.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Everything has an "app" by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      I've used apps that had decent UIs compared to the mobile version of the website, but the app still pulled all the data from the website. Then the site failed to update their app after redesigning their site, breaking the app entirely. Waited months for the app to get updated until deleting it entirely because I figured they were never going to fix it.

      Unless there's some significant need for local processing power, I'd prefer sites spend their resources on a decent website. I'm tired of apps as half-assed gateways to web pages. Just make a decent mobile/responsive site.

    5. Re:Everything has an "app" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People are catching onto the fact that 99.9% of apps are useless bullshit. People are also catching on to the increasing privacy implications -- every app wants to access your contact list and other personal information even when there is absolutely no legitimate reason for it.

    6. Re:Everything has an "app" by Barny · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Exceptions are made, of course, for XKCD.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    7. Re:Everything has an "app" by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're all wrong. We reached peak app while back, but it has nothing to do with the apps and everything to do with platform maturity.

      What we're seeing right now (or so I've read) is that smartphone sales are tapering off across all platforms. At this point, most of the people who are going to buy a smartphone have already bought one. The few remaining new adopters represent the long tail of late adopters and luddites, plus kids coming of age. Most of the new sales, then, are replacing an existing device, rather than adding a device.

      Now, consider that there are only two groups of people who are likely to download a new app: people who are looking for a solution to a problem and people who just got a cell phone and don't have any apps on it yet. To reach the first group, you have to actively promote the app to that target audience. This costs money, so most app developers aren't willing to do it. And even if they attempt it, they usually do so badly, using poorly targeted ad platforms that don't allow you to skip the ad early to indicate disinterest and don't take previous clicks into account when deciding whether the person might or might not be likely to click on the ad.

      This leaves the second group—the new users. The problem is, that pool is drying up. Except for platform switchers, the overwhelming majority of people who buy a new smartphone already own one, and that means they already have a collection of apps. Therefore, with the exception of apps that don't get updated and break on new hardware, there's really no impetus to make them download a bunch of new apps.

      So for app growth to continue at its previous pace, either marketing must get better (read "more accurately targeted") or a new platform is going to have to come along that is so amazing that it is able to draw a sizable percentage of users away from Android or iOS. Either that or some existing (but noncompeting) platform like tvOS will have to exhibit a lot of rapid growth, and by attracting new adopters there, drag users into installing the same apps on other platforms.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Everything has an "app" by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Problem with apps, whilst cool and novel, sometimes fun to use and serve some temporarily useful service, they all tend to clutter up the phone and make it more complex to use. Beyond the core apps, the rest, meh, download them, install them, rarely use them and every now and then clean up you phone by deleting them, going back to the core apps or just keeping apps that replace core apps that are not that good. Not having used an iPhone I don't know the value of their core apps but between Android and Google default apps as well as manufacturer default apps, there is not much beyond that (yahoo weather because bigger clock and date, I'm old and don't want to reach for my glasses every time and two for one, weather and time/date). Perhaps one day alphabet keyboard or not, meh.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Everything has an "app" by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      What we're seeing right now (or so I've read) is that smartphone sales are tapering off across all platforms.

      Growth of sales is tapering off. Sales are still increasing, just not increasing as much (or so I've read)

    10. Re:Everything has an "app" by tepples · · Score: 1

      Just make a decent mobile/responsive site.

      Unless a site's functionality starts to need web platform features not implemented by deliberately limited pack-in web browsers. Apple refused to support <input type="file"> until iOS 6 or WebGL until iOS 8. (I know it was deliberate because iAds could use WebGL in iOS 7, though web pages couldn't.) And on iOS, even third-party browsers that don't use a reformatting proxy are just Safari wrappers. Can a mobile website access the camera to, say, scan a barcode? And can a website on a tablet store itself for offline use?

    11. Re:Everything has an "app" by johanw · · Score: 1

      I don't. I like to be able to use most functionality when I'm offline (out of country, bad network coverage). Not all applications need to be web-centered. Playing music or video does not need a network connection. Playing most games does not need it too. I read books on my phone, offline. That's better for your privacy as well.

    12. Re:Everything has an "app" by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The most beautiful, iOS app with the simplest interface was also one of the earliest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    13. Re:Everything has an "app" by tepples · · Score: 1

      I remember websites having access to my PC webcam and microphone a good while ago

      Was that through Flash Player? Smartphone operating systems don't have Flash Player.

    14. Re:Everything has an "app" by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. The first derivative of the sales rate is decreasing towards 0 (tapering off). The sales are just flattening out.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:Everything has an "app" by Barny · · Score: 1

      Well, the few I have installed on my phone include:

      Banking App
      7-min workout app
      two different 2-factor auth apps
      Centerlink (an app for dealing with human services here)
      Google Keep
      Pink Noise generator
      XKCD (so I can read silly comics when no net connection can be had)
      Skype

      None of those have functionality I can find in the basic fare.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  2. Permissions by XXeR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be far more willing to install new apps if the permissions weren't so incredibly invasive.

    1. Re:Permissions by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. So many apps are asking for really inappropriate permissions, and I just don't have the time or motivation to deal with it.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Permissions by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are fixing this. Older apps have monolithic permissions, but in the latest OSs, you can tune them. Android is copying apple in that you can now ask for a permission at runtime and the user can disable it later.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. So many apps are asking for really inappropriate permissions

      Adobe Acrobat keeps asking me for camera permissions. Why a PDF reader needs camera access I have no idea.

    4. Re: Permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ocr scanning of pages that you take a picture of.

    5. Re:Permissions by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've not heard of the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite Camera API. Adobe can't let HTML5 do things that Adobe Digital Publishing can't do. It seems to me that HTML5 makes all of the Adobe stuff obsolete, especially since the canvas can render SVG. You can do a machine translation of PDF to HTML5. But Adobe doesn't want you to know that.

    6. Re:Permissions by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 1

      I'd be far more willing to install new apps if the permissions weren't so incredibly invasive.

      Speaking from an IOS viewpoint, I'd be far more willing to install new apps if managing them wasn't so incredibly painful.

      Apps on my phone are like search engine results -- if it isn't on the first screen, I rarely see them.

    7. Re:Permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get an iphone. All permissions are off by default and are only enabled at the time of request. You can grant or revoke permissions at any time.

      Like that fucking facebook app. No, I will not let you have my fucking phone contacts. Ever. Stop asking.

    8. Re:Permissions by ickleberry · · Score: 2

      Almost every app is spyware of some sort. Even a lot of the "good" ones are this way

    9. Re:Permissions by bobbutts · · Score: 1

      Need is a really strong word, nobody even needs a "phone" in the true sense of the word. There are dozens of apps I actually use. Communications, Navigation, Network tools, SSH Client, Remote Access, Home automation/security, Music/Video subscription apps (mostly for casting), Camera and Video capture and editing, Cloud sync/backup, Weather.

    10. Re:Permissions by jmv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is still missing is just "faking" permissions, i.e. you have permission to open my contacts, but I have none... or my camera is just filming in the dark. Cyanogenmod had that, but I'm not sure why Google hasn't decided to use it.

    11. Re:Permissions by psyclone · · Score: 1

      you can now ask for a permission at runtime and the user can disable it later.

      I want it both ways - list all the permissions you ask for up front at installation time so I can decide to allow the app or not, then allow fine-grained control at runtime.

      Many apps will now refuse to work without various permissions enabled. So while the user can disable perms at runtime, you wasted your download as the app won't work.

      Faking the data asked for would be much better - want GPS? here is the north pole. Want my contacts? here is Eric Schmidt. Want my calendar or SD card? here is an empty calendar and a temporary directory in chroot.

    12. Re:Permissions by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why would they stop asking? Every request is a chance for you to accidentally say yes!

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Permissions by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Apps for my bank and credit cards. Apps for airlines (I don't even print out boarding passes anymore). Basic document readers (that can access things that I've synced to cloud storage). Ebook reader. Bus/train schedules. HP calculator emulator. An app that tells me movie times and lets me buy tickets easily. It I was into sports, I'd probably have an app or two about that.

      So like you, there's lots of apps I use. It's dumb to look at these statistics and say "nobody wants apps anymore." It's just that, pretty plainly, the ones I want I already have.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    14. Re:Permissions by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      What is still missing is just "faking" permissions,... but I'm not sure why Google hasn't decided to use it.

      Really?
      Google?
      The company that makes its money off of selling the consumer information (or at least using it for targeted advertising). You don't see why they would not want to build a feature that it makes it harder for them to harvest data?

      Sorry if this sounds snarky but I am genuinely shocked.

    15. Re:Permissions by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      What is still missing is just "faking" permissions, i.e. you have permission to open my contacts, but I have none... or my camera is just filming in the dark. Cyanogenmod had that, but I'm not sure why Google hasn't decided to use it.

      What exactly would you expect the app to do with "fake" "empty" contacts vs just saying it can't access them? In the end you can't use whatever feature it's offering, so why add complexity?

    16. Re:Permissions by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      If you deny the app permission to read contacts it will throw an exception (or get some kind of access denied status) when trying to read them. If you fake a blank contact list, or one full of random data, then the app how no idea. The theory being that some apps would detect the block and refuse to work or degrade their functionality. It would be useful for things like "flashlight" that have no business reading your contact list.

    17. Re:Permissions by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so way to get around shitty apps with a broken permission model? It might be better to find an alternative, that way they'd see their install rate drop and do something about it?

    18. Re:Permissions by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      I have seen people complain about apps that are actually asking for appropriate permissions, such as a web browser that asks for camera, microphone, and location access.

      You ask, why does your web browser need those things? Its core functionality does not use them, and a browser will not (or at least should not, and the major browsers don't) turn on your camera or microphone without asking. But... browsers allow web sites to ask for permission to use them, and many users want the ability to grant those permissions to some web sites. The security model of mobile OSes is such that for a browser to be able to offer those capabilities to a web page, it must itself have the permissions; there is no mechanism for asking the OS for permissions on the spot.

      There is a problem with this model. Most of are willing to trust that Chrome, Firefox, and Safari will use permissions appropriately. But can we say the same of some other web browser that might interest us?

      Android Marshmallow's new ability to selectively deny permissions to an app is a step forward. (iOS has had similar capabilities for a while.) If you want to try out some new browser without fearing that it will use your camera and microphone to spy on you, you can deny those permissions to it. You won't be able to do video chat from that browser but you can still use it for other purposes. In previous Android versions you would not have been able to install that browser, because it would refuse to install unless you granted all the permissions it asked for. But it's still imperfect, because the app may not fail gracefully when it attempts to use something that it doesn't have permission to use.

    19. Re:Permissions by stridebird · · Score: 1

      Yup. When the business model is data, fake data is the way forward (for us who inexplicably distrust them). This concept needs to be massively extended, in fact. I shouldn't try to hide my data, I should flood with incorrect and meaningless data. You can run fake-data, but you can't hide. If only Streisand had known (or had a good geek friend). She only had to knock out a few fakes, pollute the search index and hey, no meme.

    20. Re:Permissions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to install apps (new or old) if any were useful.

    21. Re: Permissions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Then it should ask to use the camera when the user asks to do OCR, and *only* then. So have it refuse to display a document becuase the camera isn't allowed is a stupid design. I also see apps that refuse to start if I have location turned off even though they only use the location for some optional services (and probably ads).

    22. Re:Permissions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wait, Android copying Apple? When I got my first smart phone, Android had a list of permissions for the apps and Apple was still all-or-nothing.

    23. Re:Permissions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well anyone who looked at any app store would realize how stupid it was quickly. Just look at the "top" or "featured" apps and see how incredibly pointless most of them are. Evernote is an exception perhaps, it does something useful for some people, and something that makes sense on a handheld device that you're using remotely from your primary computer. Everything else is either a game, social media, or is chasing after evernote hoping to catch fire (a zillion productivity apps, all of which are variants on taking notes while showing you advertisements).

    24. Re:Permissions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for a good calculator, which seems like a natural fit for a handheld touchscreen, but so far haven't found any that I like.

  3. Paging the app guy by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is your story dude!

    Apps are for luddites, etc, etc

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Paging the app guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget your troubles, come on get appy
      You better chase all your cares away
      Shout Hallelujah, come on get appy
      Get ready for the judgment day

      The sun is shinin', come on get appy
      The Lord is waitin' to take your hand
      Shout Hallelujah, come on get appy
      We're going to the promise land

      We're headin' across the river
      To wash your sins away in the tide
      It's all so peaceful on the other side

      Forget your troubles, come on get appy
      You better chase all your cares away
      Shout Hallelujah, come on get appy
      Get ready for the judgment day

    2. Re:Paging the app guy by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that reminds me, I haven't seen the Golden girls poster in a while

    3. Re:Paging the app guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      APPS ARE FOR COWS! You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!

    4. Re:Paging the app guy by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Lol! I came here to say this! The one story where his bullshit is totes approps, and he's nowhere to be seen.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  4. The only "app" I want or need is Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All the rest just clutter the screen on my phone.

  5. installs and new sales by whoozwah · · Score: 1

    There might be a link between the slowdown in app installs and the sale of new smartphones. I have no data to back this up. Just spitballing. I know when I got my phone I installed pretty much everything I thought I might use within the first few days of getting it. I hardly ever install anything else on it now, having had it for at least a year.

  6. Too crowded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is too much junk in the app world. I personally don't want to sort through all of it. I have the apps I know I need/want and never search for new apps without a recommendation from a friend.

    My most recent app download was Microsoft office lens, I had no idea I needed it until I took a picture of a whiteboard and my coworker told me to use office lens instead.

    Basically I don't know I need any new apps so you have to advertise it well or it has to be recommended by a friend.

    1. Re:Too crowded by bettodavis · · Score: 1

      Most people I know look for new apps only by reputation of late. Basically only if someone they know tells them about it.

      Yeah, I know an anecdote is not a trend, but my feeling is the app market is simply saturated, which forces people to rely on other sources than the app store to decide and get one.

  7. I think you've managed to cover me adequately by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    " Most people have all the apps they want and/or need. They're not looking for new ones."

    Not much more to say. Galaxy Note 2, only 2GB of ram and 2012 tech, runs totally fine, quite happy with it, considering I paid $100 a year ago for it used... but I don't see the need to get a heap of pointless apps. I probably regularly use no more than 10, including the ones that come on the phone.

    1. Re:I think you've managed to cover me adequately by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I see some app developers got some moderator points this week.

  8. Web apps are the future again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Web apps have all the same benefits over native apps that web apps had over desktop apps 10 years ago. Native apps are just shims until web apps are good enough. They are getting good enough.

    1. Re:Web apps are the future again by scorp1us · · Score: 2

      No. As an app developer, Web apps do not integrate with the hardware that well. While most pf your apps, will work just fine, there is a niche out there where running on the handset and not in a browser is the only way to get the job done.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Web apps are the future again by scorp1us · · Score: 2

      Anything that is media heavy or uses machine learning will need to still run locally. You just can't afford the round trip to the server and back in a lot of cases.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Web apps are the future again by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. As an app developer, Web apps do not integrate with the hardware that well.

      This. Web apps can't easily upload and datamine my contact list, photos, etc..

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Web apps are the future again by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Poor native apps are just web app shims. Good ones are much better than the mobile equivalent. They are faster, they look better, and integrate w/ the device's hardware.

      The perfect example is Google that has very good mobile web apps for almost everything. But the native equivalents blow them away. Compare Android Google Maps to maps.google.com if you don't get it.

  9. Micropayments by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know everybody just LOVES it and I am alone on this. But micro payments / in app purchases killed the games for me. I don't mind paying for the games and I used to buy new ones every month. But I haven't spent money in any "app store" in over 2 years now.

    1. Re:Micropayments by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      But micro payments / in app purchases killed the games for me.

      I love those games. I play them for FREE all the time, as I don't make any in-app purchases. If the game becomes impossible to finish or deliberately corrupts the saved game file, I'll move on to another game.

    2. Re: Micropayments by chentiangemalc · · Score: 2

      Same for me...micro payments totally turned me off mobile games, I pretty much have none on my phone now despite regularly purchasing games in the past. I don't mind buying comes ... Hate the constant upsell...

    3. Re:Micropayments by Calydor · · Score: 1

      It's really a bit like playing a game on hard mode. Fewer lives, rarer continues, harder levels - it gives a certain satisfaction to make it through level after level without paying anything.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Micropayments by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am with you. I do not like Micropayments but at the same time some games are do an ok job with them. For instance Moonbase on Android is fun and if I want I can buy some extra structures if I want.
      Any game that makes me buy in game purchases just do not work for me. I will pay for a game but I will not do IAP.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Micropayments by tepples · · Score: 1

      When even the most basic actions in a game take 24 hours to complete (e.g. digging in Dungeon Keeper), how do you finish a game before becoming bored with it?

  10. The app hype is definately over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of users nowadays consider apps as spyware and rightfully so !
    And even when I am seriously interested in some app but, say a tasklist manager, wants access to my photo's, contacts, call list, sms, and what not I just don't install it.
    Has advertisements in it ? No thanks.
    I am using a few apps, like 5 or 6, that really bring something usefull for me and I don't mind paying for them as long as they don't have adds and use me as the product

    1. Re:The app hype is definately over by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I know really, and since web sites have never been accused of tracking users, I can really see where you are coming from (*cough* tracking cookies *cough*).

  11. HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can deliver a wonderful interactive user experience with HTML5, especially because of the Web Audio/Video interface which makes the microphone and camera available to a Javascript program, the HTML5 2D canvas (I've not done anything with HTML5 3D canvas yet) and Websockets for a session-based connection. The Javascript language and the web APIs are kludges built on top of kludges, but they are well-optimized and they work across three widely-available browsers.

    That is, except on iOS because Apple insists that web browsers use their handicapped rendering engine instead of the browser's native one. Apple needs to catch up. Right now, I just don't support them. You need to run Chrome, Firefox, or Opera with their full rendering engine, not Apple's handicapped one. This even works on Mac, just not iOS.

    1. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by nadass · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      Most seem to forget that technology like smartphone apps are temporary boxed-in containers intended to bring missing platform functionality. For example, when navigation features became built-in to the platforms, then their third-party app equivalents became redundant -- or had to scale up to justify its competitive value. Same goes for media players, etc.

      Similarly, as the underlying platforms (hardware and software alike) evolved to provide improved UX via other containers [mobile browsers] then the need for a mobile app disappeared. The only salvation for mobile apps, in this vein, is as containers for personal settings to otherwise server-side web apps (like news readers). The realm of games, however, remains unmatched on mobile devices... so apps rule that dimension.

    2. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you have bandwidth to spare, don't mind never owning any of your apps, and are fine with completely being at the mercy of the publisher.

      I highly prefer apps because I retain some measure of control. It wants to poke around where it shouldn't now? Well, I don't have to install the update. It gets discontinued? I still have it locally and have time to look for a replacement.

    3. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, I do own my apps, I'm the copyright holder. And there are APIs to install HTML5 programs on your phone/tablet/etc. Do you mean owning apps that you've paid for? Sorry, you don't own them, You have a license.

      In general, not installing the update doesn't work. If it uses a remote server at all, that server knows what version you are using, and can disallow old ones.

    4. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      And it seems that a lot of apps just run an embedded browser. More than once an app has shown me a 404 page, etc.

    5. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete

      They say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      So far every major phone platform has gone through this cycle. First: native apps are obsolete! Then it turns out that no actually they aren't obsolete because nothing has the performance of C++. Then they allow native apps.

      I can deliver a wonderful interactive user experience with HTML5

      Depends on the experience. Some you can, but it simply doesn't have the performance for others.

      but they are well-optimized and they work across three widely-available browsers.

      No they ain't. If you don't believe me, go and grab an old PC (say an eee 900) and try web apps versus real native code. The web apps, like google docs, you tube and so on are hilariously bad, basically unusable now compared to say libreoffice which is still snappy and any native video player which can happily play 720p video, compared to a browser which can barely manage 320p now.

      Fortunately new machines are much faster, but the performance gap still exists and is the same magnitude.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I didn't volunteer to support the VAX-780 :-) . The gap between native code and web code will further narrow as webassembly develops. There's no reason not to compile that to native code.

    7. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to get your getting your spyware laden crap onto my computer.

      All I want is a plain ol' HTML4 browser. Blocking JS, blocking ads. Not a PDF-like view o the world where everyone rewrites a shittier version of a rendering engine in a Canvas to avoid ad-blockers. Not one where you can theoretically pull data from the canvas with unique identifiers, because some asshole wants to write an application in a webpage- which should be passive.

      What's wrong with separating data from code with pages and apps?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Keeping spyware-laden crap off of your machine is a laudable goal. But I fail to understand how native apps, rather than HTML5 ones, help rather than hinder your security. They're not generally source-available, and you don't get the browser's capabilities to control and inspect them. What am I missing?

    9. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What am I missing?

      I would say the difference is quantity and trust. I load orders of magnitude more websites than I do apps. I also load them from sketchier sources. (Relative to apps. I do still exercise discretion.)

      The safer it is so load a website (for instance, if it's all text with some formatting) the easier it is for me to load disparate sites. That allows far more discovery of information.

      But, to sum up, basically the difference is I opt into downloading an app. HTML5 turns every webpage into a driveby installer. Well, not installer, but run-once execution. Which is almost as bad.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There is a HTML5 API for persistent local storage, at least 5 MB, so you might as well consider it a drive-by installer.

      Short of BLIT happening, the world isn't going to provide you with the sanitary web we used to have. What you and other Open Source folks can do is work toward really good sandboxing. Constantly.

      I sympathize. I pine for the world where we didn't have to encrypt every page.

    11. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by narcc · · Score: 2

      That's hasn't been true for a while. Packaged web apps are essentially identical to other apps, negating your concerns entirely, but that's not what you have in mind. For those, standards like application cache and other offline features are quickly making differentiating between web apps and 'native' apps meaningless. It takes very little effort to make a web app function completely offline. (The benefits to the developer/distributors are obvious.) Download it once, and it's stored locally in perpetuity -- just like any other app.

      Oddly enough, with Apple and Google happily removing apps from users devices without either warning or their consent, web apps might very well offer you more control.

    12. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but my point is you can see the very stark performance difference on that machine. It's harder to see the difference on an i7 for a word processor. Nonetheless, google docs for example is probably an order of magnitude slower while having far fewer features.

      WASM will close the gap to some extent on raw number crunching code. However for anything output related the stuff has to go to the screen via the browser which is not exactly efficient. Case in point: browsers have their video decoders in compiled code already yet the act of displaying them to the screen is far, far more costly than native media players.

      There's a reason no AAA games are written as webapps, and that reason is that those are performance sensitive.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      While HTML5 allows for persistent local storage, I would classify it differently from the drive-by installer. The drive-by installer, to me, conjurers images of programs that continue to run (and often restart on bootup). The persistent local storage is, at least I hope is, purely data.

      Is there a good resource to dig into the concept of sandboxing? I'm interested, but I'm at the stage of understanding where "it seems like good sandboxing should be trivial."

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Similarly, as the underlying platforms (hardware and software alike) evolved to provide improved UX via other containers [mobile browsers] then the need for a mobile app disappeared.

      You obviously don't use a mobile browser.

    15. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by tepples · · Score: 1

      I thought "application cache" was deprecated in favor of "service workers", and "service workers" were hard to test privately because of the requirement for HTTPS.

    16. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by tepples · · Score: 1

      There is a HTML5 API for persistent local storage, at least 5 MB

      Is that only for the data accessed by scripts on the page or also for the page itself? If I bookmark a page, close the browser, disconnect from the Internet, reopen the browser, and then open the bookmark, will the page load? Besides, in a lot of browsers, it's 5 MB of UTF-16, and you need to store certain things (such as images) encoded in base64 URIs with the data: scheme, so you can really use 6 out of every 16 bits, or 1.875 MB.

    17. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There's an article in Wikipedia. It's how you handle programs you can't trust. Give them a way to run without ever being allowed to do anything dangerous. Like writing to the filesystem rather than a special area reserved for that web page. Or turning on the camera without telling you - the browser will ask you the first time the page wants the camera and then will save the preference for that page.

      So, you have to define everything that is dangerous, and everything that's not, And then you have to keep looking for ways that pages could get out of the sandbox, and fix them. It gets harder as features and optimization are added, you must check for security issues in every one.

    18. Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Sorry to have been unclear - I know what sandboxing is. I'm just at the point where it sounds super-easy. And any technical issue that sounds super-easy means you don't understand it.

      I kinda understand why that RAM hammering issue could exist. Actually flipping hardware bits is something that software engineers don't usually think about. But somehow, sandbox breaking issues like this brand new Chrome bug keep happening.

      And I don't just mean "bugs happen". There must be some not following of best practices, or similar. And I want to make sure my code is not exploitable, esp. if I'm contributing to commonly used open source.

      I suppose, what I'm asking for is a decent best practices manual (which I expect would be long.

      As an aside, I would imagine whitelisting, not blacklisting, would be the way to go.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  12. Still waiting for "OW, MY BALLS!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nt

  13. 4 free apps from f-droid.org are all I need by ffkom · · Score: 2

    From time to time I look into the list of new apps available on f-droid.org, but it's a long time ago I saw something new I really wanted to have. And certainly, I will not register an account with Google or use any commercial app store.

    1. Re:4 free apps from f-droid.org are all I need by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "I will not register an account with Google or use any commercial app store."
      That is cute, you can move along now.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. Re:No looking for new apps by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    ... because it's a smartphone?

    Are you sure you're on the right site?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  15. Re:No looking for new apps by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Because sometimes you *do* need/want one.

    I'm a *very* anti-app person - if I can do it from a browser on my desktop/laptop why the hell do I need an app to do it on my phone? - but this doesn't apply to all apps. It certainly doesn't apply to anything that is using the (somewhat unique) hardware in the phone - camera, motion sensor, touch screen sensor, etc

    Other than what iOS forced onto my phone, I've added a SSH client, remote control for my TV, and a sound level meter (to see how loud some rimfire ammo is and to compare some suppressors). On my Android tablet (taken over from the wife last week, put cyanogen on it) I've added an epub reader, some wireless sniffing tools to check coverage, and a SSH client (same one I use on my phone, still looking for a great terminal/shell app). Oh, and a financial calculator that I need for an exam I'm going to be taking tomorrow.

    Sure my home screens are loaded with icons, but almost all of them are website bookmarks/shortcuts/whatever you want to call 'em when you pick "add to home screen" instead of "add to (internal to the browser) bookmarks"

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  16. Excess permissions, won't use SD card by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The excess permissions are an issue.

    But the real road block is larger apps that require the limited phone memory and which won't / can't use the SD card.

    I've had 29 gigabytes of free memory and apps that couldn't update or install due to lack of space.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Excess permissions, won't use SD card by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      If you are using Android 6.0, you can use your SD card as an expansion of your internal memory. In my GF Moto G2 (which has only 8GB internal memory and less than 5 free) I put a 32GB UHS-1 card, go into storage/whatever, click "use it as internal storage", it formats the card and tada! she has a "40GB" phone and can move audio/video and apps on the SD card easily.

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Excess permissions, won't use SD card by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm at 5.1.1. I'll keep that in mind when I get my next phone. cool feature.

      For now, it sometimes lets me move an app to the card.. but most the time it doesn't.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  17. Re:No looking for new apps by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    Maybe to increase he functionality of your existing hardware?
    I'm assuming here that "initial phone setup" includes the apps you want / need now and that you can't see the future.

  18. Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This xkcd states it pretty well.

    I own a software company. Every week someone talks with me about the app they want built. Almost always, they do not actually need any functionality that is missing from HTML5. Very occasionally they do (such as these guys.)

    Why would anyone install an app which does not offer anything above the web site? They wouldn't. Clients pay tremendous amounts of money to build apps, which have not been designed, tested, or thought about in any kind of a meaningful way. Even when those clients have money, most of the time I stay away, since being a part of something dumb isn't that great (even if you're getting paid.) Or I try and help them think about it, and then build them a webpage, if they have money.

    1. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone install an app which does not offer anything above the web site?

      Convenience. Let me give you an example. There's a site I have bookmarked on both my desktop and my laptop that tells me the best gas prices near where I live. If I'm on the road, I can tell the site where I am and it will get me the best local prices, but I have to do that every time I need it, and I can't use it in the car. I also have their mobile app on my phone. If I'm low on gas, I can pull over, bring the app up and it will use my GPS to find the nearest stations and they're prices, or I can hand my phone to a passenger and let them use the app. Most of the time, it's just as simple to use the website because it already defaults to prices where I live, but there are times that that's not practical and using the app is.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      Your point makes a lot of sense for gigantic businesses. The vast majority of my customers are not gigantic businesses, and thus need to accomplish something useful with my software. However, I think you are right, in a super cynical way.

    3. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      That is a good example, up to a certain point. Eventually, you'll get clogged up with tons of apps you want to install for convenience, exactly the same way that browser shortcuts eventually need to be organized.

      Will that mobile page not pull GPS? GPS is supported in HTML5. If it does, you could pin that to your home screen (using Chrome, with a shortcut) to accomplish the same thing. If you don't want to have their app installed...

      I still see your point though. Pinning a URL might be more complicated than installing an app.

    4. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If you go to their website, you still have to go to the right city. This may involve getting to the right county first (I live in Ventura County in California but I often need this in Los Angeles, or Orange County.) or even the right state, depending on how far you're going. With the mobile app, you bring it up, tell it to find gas prices for you and get a list of what's local, with prices. Much faster, much easier and no worries about getting wrong info because of a typo.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Then that's just a case of bad web design.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    6. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like the other dude said, that is bad design. There is no reason that the webpage would have to function differently than the app now - webpages can get GPS coordinates from a GPS chip, just as an app can get GPS coordinates from a GPS chip.

    7. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      That's not going to work very well unless the computer has a GPS chip, and neither my desktop nor my laptop has one.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's something called a media query, which allows you to style your site differently based on the screen resolution. This concept is how sites are (easily) responsive to different size screens. Additionally, developers SHOULD check to see if the browser + hardware supports the call being made, before calling it. For GPS, that would be to use the GPS coordinates, only if GPS exists. Otherwise, make them fill out a form.

      That would be a well designed, responsive, website. There is no technical reason that would be impossible. It would be cheaper to build that than to build a website, and an Android app, and an iOS app.

    9. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by tepples · · Score: 1

      Almost always, they do not actually need any functionality that is missing from HTML5.

      Just because a piece of functionality is listed in the HTML5 Living Standard doesn't mean that the piece of functionality is implemented in Safari for iOS. Until iOS 6, <input type="file"> was missing, and until iOS 8, WebGL was missing. And per the App Store Review Guidelines, all other browsers that run on an iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad have the same functionality as Safari for iOS.

    10. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      If you need to support something, on an older version of a phone which does not implement the HTML5 standard, and you have a budget to do so, then yes, an app makes sense. Just like if you need to access arbitrary hardware, an app makes sense.

      My point is that as the HTML5 standards become more widely adopted, and feature-rich, the need for the cases you described becomes smaller and smaller. That is the entire point behind putting this functionality into the browser in the first place.

    11. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you need to support something, on an older version of a phone which does not implement the HTML5 standard

      Even Apple's latest phone lacks support for ServiceWorker, making it "an older version" by these criteria.

    12. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      ServiceWorker - May 9, 2016, 5:04:48 AM - This is an experimental technology. Because this technology's specification has not stabilized, check the compatibility table for usage in various browsers.

      Yes, if you want/need to use experimental, new, HTML5 specifications that are not supported across different browsers, then I am going to agree that an app is not your best choice... However, I wouldn't say that that makes it an older version since it does not implement the standard. My above statement was not meant to be an if, and only if definition. I would say that for this case, it is an experimental standard which has not been implemented yet.

      Again, my point is that is makes sense to actually look at these different requirements, your budget, and make an intelligent determination based on the requirements and the resources you have to bear. It does not make sense to say "let's do an app, since an app can do everything" unless you have an unlimited budget and you have the goal of writing an app, for the purpose of writing an app.

    13. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what I meant was "then I am going to agree that a webpage is not your best choice..."

    14. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by tepples · · Score: 1

      In other words, if you want your users to be able to use your site on an iPod touch or iPad (Wi-Fi) while away from Wi-Fi, you need an app.

    15. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Actually what those webpages would want is your location, and they don't need GPS for that.

      Have you ever seen a browser prompt asking you for permission to share your location? If you allow it, the browser will figure it out (often with the help of Google if it's Firefox/Chrome) and then send the location to the page.

      In many populated areas all is needed is WiFi to get 50m accuracy of your location. If there's no WiFi, a guess will be made, sometimes the guess isn't far off, sometimes it is.

      Check out an implementation here:
      https://edsu.github.io/creepy-...
      (allow the share location request if you are brave and willing to test it out). For best results use a laptop with WiFi enabled.

      From internal testing, WiFi location can be quite accurate AND more importantly it often can work where GPS doesn't - e.g. inside a mall. Google presumably populates and updates their DB with the help of android phones (that have stuck to the default of "high accuracy") and their streetview vehicles.

      Microsoft probably is doing a similar thing but they don't have quite as many phones out there.

      --
    16. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      In many populated areas all is needed is WiFi to get 50m accuracy of your location. If there's no WiFi, a guess will be made, sometimes the guess isn't far off, sometimes it is.

      At home, on my desktop, I have a wired connection to my router and out by ADSL. Location sharing is generally several miles off because that's where the DSLAM is. If I'm using my laptop at home, the WiFi is connected to my own router, which again, goes out the phone lines. The only time I'm likely to get more accurate location data from WiFi is when I'm on the road and using my phone. Of course, if I'm looking for a nearby gas station, a few miles isn't going to make much of a difference.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re:Mobile Responsive Page = Fine by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      This is extremely cool. Thanks for sharing this, I did not know about this before.

  19. App issues by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Here's a definitely non-comprehensive list of issues I see in mobile app ecosystem for $provider:

    1. App copycats. There's a gazillion "flappy bird" knock-offs, to the point where the customer says "screw them all".
    2. Horrid permission requirements. Granted, most people don't even give a fuck, but those who do slowly teach others, I guess it started to pay off.
    3. Phone bloatware: it generates a certain repulsion towards downloading and installing more apps since day one.
    4. Retarded ad system for apps. There are too many apps which present you with misleading / unintelligible (aka in other languages) / too flashy / clickbait / straight malevolent ads. "TAP TO REMOVE VIRUS" flashing red+white ad banner on an app with dark background is NOT the way to go.
    5. Unsecured in-app purchases on apps for kids - what the fuck.

    The above are off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:App issues by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since you've made a list, i'll add to it:

      6: Fear of malicious apps: As with #2 a lot of people don't give a fuck, but as more and more stories come out about malicious apps slipping past the security of the official stores more and more people will be wary of downloading an app they're not sure they can trust.
      7: Lack of space: Many phones have limited space and don't allow you to use an SD card. On my Android phone when i dip below 500 MB of free space it won't let me install anything new, or even update an existing app. So i can either find some music or photos i want to delete or an old app i want to uninstall or just say screw it, i didn't want that new app that badly anyway.

      And finally, N: The original premise, most people already have all the apps they really need: This by itself might not kill app downloads, but when you combine it with all the other issues listed above it provides a strong incentive to just not bother.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:App issues by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      8. Lack of need. I got everything I could possibly need out of the box on my phone. No need for redundant adware apps.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    3. Re:App issues by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

      2. Horrid permission requirements. Granted, most people don't even give a fuck

      I wouldn't say people don't care, it's just that Google and Apple make it too difficult to find apps that don't require unnessesary permissions. There have been many times I've been searching for a simple app (like sun/moon rise times, weather, tap and drill chart, etc) where I found it faster to just write my own than to try to find one that wasn't spyware.

  20. The App Fad Bubble is over by Livius · · Score: 1

    Apps will still be important, and undoubtedly there will be some that become popular and some that will be economically important for either their users or their developers or both. But the novelty of an app for the sake of having an app has ended.

  21. Sounds like Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where Google can discontinue something at any time. Or if you have no internet access, it may as well not exist.

    And you are depending on a third party.

    I don't trust web apps, many of them vanish. I have applications I have had for 20 years. And mobile apps I have had for almost 5 years.

    There are few web sites viable for 10 years or even 5 years and sometimes not even 2 years or 6 months.

    1. Re:Sounds like Google by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Where Google can discontinue something at any time.

      Discontinue what? HTML and JavaScript? They could discontinue all of Android if you want to go that route.

      Or if you have no internet access, it may as well not exist.

      There are ways to get your web app to store stuff onto your device so it's usable offline.

      And you are depending on a third party.

      What third party? The website? How is that different than an app that is no longer updated that has security holes and/or doesn't work with a newer OS version?

      I don't trust web apps, many of them vanish. I have applications I have had for 20 years. And mobile apps I have had for almost 5 years.

      There are few web sites viable for 10 years or even 5 years and sometimes not even 2 years or 6 months.

      Apps can vanish too. Google (maybe Apple too?) can even uninstall them from your device.

  22. A phone that is good at being a phone by kheldan · · Score: 1

    A decent personal music player, too, and enough control over it to secure the phone from being hacked. Stereo bluetooth. User-replaceable battery. A slot for a microSD card. Wifi access to the internet that I can be sure only ever uses wifi and never the cellphone network, so I don't need a dataplan. That's about what I want out of a phone.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:A phone that is good at being a phone by tepples · · Score: 1

      Wifi access to the internet that I can be sure only ever uses wifi and never the cellphone network, so I don't need a dataplan.

      Good luck getting carriers to agree to that. AT&T has been known to add a data plan behind your back unless you're very careful to buy a pay-as-you-go SIM and then activate it on AT&T's website using a desktop or laptop computer instead of in your phone.

  23. Probably depend son the OS by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Most" smartphone users run Android. Mostly because "most" smartphones out there are Android. Been that way for a long time - Android's outsold iOS 4:1 or so for a few years now. So I wouldn't be surprised that "most" smartphone users download zero apps - they got a smartphone because that's pretty much what is available.

    So I'd guess most smartphone users don't bother with apps not because they are scared of permissions or whatever, but because they don't care - their smartphone already came laden with the apps they care about - Facebook, Pandora, Spotify, etc. They don't know, nor care about anything else. They got a smartphone, and damned if they were going to pay more than $0 for it.

    Of course, that excludes a certain other mobile OS where developers do make money. Granted,t he gold rush is over, and there's tons of crap, but whose users do keep getting apps and all that. Of course, since they are a tiny minority of smartphone users (under 20%), well, they don't count.

    Then of course, Android app users generally don't pay for apps as a whole so if a developer wants to eat, ads are pretty much the only way.

  24. Re:No looking for new apps by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

    Remote for my TV because I always loose the remote and that's about it.... A bar code scanner I used to get serial numbers off of inventory.

  25. Introducing my new app by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Introducing my new app, App Boom Over. App Boom over is an app available on Android and iOS that informs you about new useless apps that are available to download. Never stop downloading new useless apps you don't need with App Boom Over. Set App Boom Over to automatic, and App Boom Over finds new useless apps for information you don't need and could easily obtain by typing into the browser such as the temperature outside, the day of the week, time, how many apps you've downloaded, and...

  26. Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most people have all the apps they want and/or need.

    640 apps oughtta be enough for anyone. -Gill Bates

  27. Apps extend the desktop today. That's about it. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Yes, the hype is over, save for perhaps the occasional "viral" game. What we see today is nothing more than users wanting or needing extensions to their favorite websites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), which is rather expected given people's attraction to live and breathe the web through their smartphone. It's also a rather finite list, validating the theory here that app usage has fallen dramatically.

    What I don't get is the attraction to using a smartphone for seemingly everything these days. It's really weird how an 65" HDTV will hang on the wall in a home, and yet you'll find that same home filled with people watching Netflix on a cool smartphone they bought because it has an "HD" screen. Logic that defies all...

  28. Re:Millions of Apps that don't do much by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    what is it we need?

    At the risk of everyone telling me how I'm doing it wrong, here's my list:
    Camera, SMS app, Podcast app, calendar app, Reminders, flashlight, alarm/timer/stopwatch clock (all probably built in already)
    Office Lens. Great doc. scanning utility to just get things done. Pairs wonderfully with
    OneNote. I don't know if we're worshiping / hating MS ATM but I love OneNote. There. I said it.
    Kindle. 'Cause it's awesome to never not have your book with you.
    Map app (any). I can't navigate myself out of a shallow indentation in the ground.
    Audio recorder app. Sometimes you just can't write it down. I last used it to record the lic. plate no. of a hit and run driver.
    GoodReader (iOS). Sync your WIP and reference files locations from your laptop and you have your info. even in airplane mode.
    Remote administration app (VNC / RD / ARD / whatever protocol). When you need into that server NOW, but you're on the freeway. Never sudo and drive!
    Netflix. See Kindle above.
    Clash Royale. Strangely I can enjoy losing at that game.

  29. intrusive by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    Most apps intrude too much into my privacy.
    I disable nearly everything.
    I'd rather my privacy than having a really useful device in my hands.
    I want an phone running Linux, just like my pc, where I have full control.

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:intrusive by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I want an phone running Linux, just like my pc, where I have full control.

      Do tell, how do you restrict apps running on your PC in a way that isn't done / possible on a mobile OS?

      Say for example if wrote an app that could read your (user) browser history, and I got you to install it and run it. What does Linux do to prevent this? The answer is nothing. You ran the process as your user, and the history is owned by your user. You are fucked.

      Android is actually more secure since every app runs as a unique user ID, preventing an apps from interacting with each other in most ways. Does your Linux PC do that?

    2. Re:intrusive by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      There are a few options:

      VMs.
      User switching (Windows: Shutdown > Switch User)
      Run a program as another user

  30. Most apps I see are trash by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most apps are trash -- free to buy, but crippled and requiring more work to actually make work, tied into network cloud / validation, etc.

    If you want me to put it on my phone or tablet, here's what you need to do:

    1) write something useful
    2) charge me reasonably -- I'll pay up to $10 without flinching if it's actually useful. More if it's fabulous
    3) no nickle and diming. None. I buy it, it works. I'm not doing "in-app purchases" and that's bloody final
    4) no network ties for continued operation or validation or any such shit. I paid you, it should work, period
    5) no ads. No Ads. NO ADS. NO FUCKING ADS.
    6) Make sure you make both Android and iOS versions for games or chat or other device-to-device applications.
    7) interoperable - if it's a game, for instance, make SURE the iOS and Android versions interoperate.
    8) did I mention no ads? Because, FFS, no ads, please.
    9) If you think you need the "cloud", you should probably rethink that. Hard. Because the cloud sucks. If your app uses it, your app sucks.
    A) Is it too much to ask that your shite actually WORKS? (I know a lot of this is Apple and Google's fault.)

    More on #6: Carcassonne is a poster child for this. The Android version doesn't talk to the iOS version. So you want to play a game with someone, but you aren't using the same OS... can't do that. This happened, BTW, because the original game authors sold some part of the rights to a completely different company. Now they both have a crippled product. It's just data, you idiots.

    More on #A: I bought Fieldrunners for the iPad. Really like it, great game, grandkids like it too; so I bought it for my Galaxy S6. Money up front, yay. Right? No. Crashes on startup. Every. Fucking. Time. So this year, when I moved to the Galaxy S7, I thought, I'll try it again. Crashes on startup. Every. Fucking. Time.

    One reason I stopped buying apps for iOS is the stream of broken apps Apple leaves behind by constantly breaking the damned operating system. Probably a third of the apps I have on my iPad no longer work because iOS got API cancer. Again. And again. All kinds of stuff is broken. For instance, Plants vs. Zombies just crashes when I start it. Used to work fine. I hardly use my iPad any more because of apps that don't work.

    Another reason I stopped buying apps for iOS is the disappearance of apps from the store: Apple requires devs to pay a fee just to keep an app in the store, and at the same time, prevents sideloading. Reminds me of the mafia's business model. Repulsive. Makes me actually not LIKE to buy apps. My S6 lets me install apps from anywhere. Which means devs can maintain apps and keep them available without having their blood sucked constantly, regardless of sales level. Much better.

    Finally, sometimes I simply can't find anything. For instance, for my Galaxy S6 and now S7, I can't find an app to give me audio control; all I want is a decent EQ system, 10 bands or more, with some decent range. I have looked for this multiple times in the Play store and Amazon's app store and all I can find is the very worst kind of junkware, from being infested with ads to crashing to working then stopping. It seems that no one actually wants my money. Seems a shame, as I'd actually like to give it to someone.

    Bottom line for me is that it seems that in the rush to monetize the living shit out of everything, producing quality applications for a straightforward exchange of value is no longer what I typically find. The blame goes in many directions. But part of the solution is pretty easy. Stop writing shit apps, and you can have my money. I don't know how you can get Apple to behave, that seems like a lost cause to me (and we own a crapload of Apple hardware here, so that is in no way a smug observation), but under Android, the door is wide open to my wallet. I would LOVE to buy your app if you would just write a good one that does something useful or fun. I could buy a hundred apps today without impacting my budget in any way. And I'd LIKE to. For me, fo

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Most apps I see are trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > One reason I stopped buying apps for iOS is the stream of broken apps Apple leaves behind by constantly breaking the damned operating system.

      As a hobbyist programmer with a bunch of apps - every time Apple updates their OS I have to slog through whatever they broke this time and update all my apps. For someone with no time and who doesn't make much money off the apps this is a pain in the ass.

    2. Re:Most apps I see are trash by melting_clock · · Score: 1

      Your points are great. Well said.

      There are just too many ad supported apps that are complete junk and too many apps trying to do the same thing. It is only getting more difficult to find the good apps in the mess. A good app can go bad quickly, through a buy out or a developer becoming evil in search of a bit of few dollars. I've been stung by devs turning an app I paid for upfront into a ad supported piece of shit and adding privacy invading features (spyware). Get burned a few times and it becomes difficult to trust developers enough to try or buy new apps.

      There are only a few apps that I regularly use so there is no need to install more, unless I come across an app that does something I need and has a developer that appears trustworthy.

    3. Re:Most apps I see are trash by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      3) no nickle and diming. None. I buy it, it works. I'm not doing "in-app purchases" and that's bloody final

      Unless it is a genuine way to make a product that you pay for what you use - similar to the different pricing tiers of modern IDE / OS / ... - but don't have to commit to a certain level at initial purchase.

      However if we go this way, it should be made very clear prior to purchasing:
      what is in the initial product,
      what is not,
      how much are the add ons

    4. Re:Most apps I see are trash by johanw · · Score: 1

      > 2) charge me reasonably -- I'll pay up to $10 without flinching if it's actually useful. More if it's fabulous
      > 4) no network ties for continued operation or validation or any such shit. I paid you, it should work, period

      Expect the app to have a piracy rate over 95% if both conditions are met. (4) means copying the apk once and install it everywhere. If (4) is required to check a license online, expect piracy rates to drop to 85%. If you make it Lucky Patcher resistant (not trivial) piracy rates might drop even to 80%.

    5. Re:Most apps I see are trash by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Or watch the version that you paid for fail to work because it's incompatible with the OS update that you got since you bought it.

      From a developer's point of view, one of the appealing things about the app store model is that you only have to support ONE version. If anybody reports a bug in an older version, you can just tell them to upgrade since it's free. Though that's a bit of a mess over in Android land, because your new version may not be compatible with the older and non-upgradeable OS on their phone. On the other hand, over there you CAN back up your phone, or the old version can be made available for sideloading (unless you happen to be one of the unfortunates who bought one of the Android phones from AT&T that disables sideloading).

    6. Re:Most apps I see are trash by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      And what I hate the most that you pay the full price of some application and then couple of months later they release new "major" version and they want the same amount of money again. Hey, I already paid you those $10, I'm not paying again. But at the same time, the old version gets abandoned and that's it.

      I completely agree with you though, just saying that it all depends on the developers and their integrity.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  31. Petty much the elephant in the room by gilgongo · · Score: 2

    I'm a UI designer, and I find it amazing that almost very business I've worked for is happy to fling huge amounts of cash at creating native apps without even wanting to answer the obvious question their customers will ask: "Why should I download this?"

    So far in pretty extensive customer research, the best that anyone can come up with is an offline condition (eg MailOnline's news app allows you to download news and read it 1995 style), speed (they think it's somehow faster) and a kind of ragged notion of better aesthetics. After that it's a grab bag of slightly better maps integration, the convenience of a shortcut on the desktop, and (for the business) avoiding the Google tax that your web app will have to pay if you want to sell anything online. Statistically, it's also known that some apps (mainly news ones) will get huge usage from a tiny (and usually numerically static) fanbase.

    But that's about it.

    It's all so weird. So wasteful and strange - but I'll design 'em if they want 'em (I've given up pushing back).

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:Petty much the elephant in the room by Lennie · · Score: 1

      It's kind of funny, it's a bit like websites many, many years ago. Every business is like: we want a website. What do you want to put on the website ? What is your audience ? What would you like to communicate ? Euh... I don't know. LoL.

      You already mentioned it, but I think it goes deeper: a place on the home screen. Which is limited real estate. Something a browser bookmark to home screen could do too, which was harder to do in older browsers but more and more people are finding it now it has become easier in browsers.

      Probably the biggest reason apps got such a jump over web is because of off-line support in browsers. HTML5 had offline support, but it didn't work well.

      And maybe performance, but current new phones have no problems with that. CPU/GPU, etc. is not the most taxing part of a phone. It's networking and powering the screen.

      Their is a new API which is now supported by all the latest browsers:
      https://jakearchibald.github.i...
      http://caniuse.com/#feat=servi...

      Let's see if they got it right this time.

      And people now know they don't want to install sketchy software. They even understand they don't want plugins any more on their desktop/laptop.

      The biggest missing part of mobile web is: it's not easy to do payments. In many countries people can't use the app store either (no credit card).

      Maybe this will happen: https://www.w3.org/Payments/

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  32. Good enough by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    1. Good enough: devices come with the best versions of most everything you need. An Android device comes with Google maps, Google drive, Google Inbox, Google Calendar, Google Chrome, Google music etc. You don't *need* anything else.

    2. Saturation: There are so many apps for every purpose it's hard to know what to install. The novelty is gone. In the early days I used to just page through new apps to see what people had done. Now everything is done 10x and I've seen it before in one form or another.

  33. Lots of people don't want the "smart"-phone by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    It is hard, especially in developed countries, to even find non-smartphones in stores. Even people that have 0 interest in any of the "smart" features such as the expandability via apps. are by in large forced into the smartphone market

    1. Re:Lots of people don't want the "smart"-phone by Buttonius · · Score: 1

      You can order a dumb phone from the far East and have it delivered to your home for $12.50. Quad band, no SIM lock. Don't believe me? check out http://www.buyincoins.com/item... .

  34. 99.9999% of apps are garbage by xtal · · Score: 1

    I predict an uptick in clean apps that provide functionality people need. Likely leveraging or completely open source.

    I tried to get some programs for my work-issued Blackberry and was shocked by the garbage.

    I also predict an uptick in third-party collections of apps and reviews; there's lots of analogs to what happened with shareware back in the olden days.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:99.9999% of apps are garbage by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      At least on Apple getting something in the Store used to be a pain if it was free/open - IIRC VLC went through a lot of hassle to do it.

      And at least with some Android distributions you can use 3rd party stores or no store at all

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  35. It's called marketing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    We at at a more mature stage of the app store, where people may not go looking for apps much - but they still LIKE to download them, if they know the app exists.

    So now we are at the stage where marketing really matters. People will not just find your app, they must learn it exists somehow and then they will go get it.

    That also means the first launch experience better be pretty damn awesome, or else they'll just open the app , hate it, and dump it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. Re:No looking for new apps by psyclone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Serverauditor is a decent SSH client for Android. Free works, but does occasionally nag you to pay for the subscription. I would happily pay a one-time fee, but app subscriptions are silly.

  37. What a surprise ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    most smartphones users download zero apps per month
    Wow. Am I somehow expected to "download apps"?

    What would I do with them? Probably App developers or sales companies don't produce Apps that users want/need?

    When I suddenly have a new interest, I look for Apps. That might be once a year, or 5 times a year.

    But I'm not browsing the App-Stores for new Apps, I rather browse the Books-Stores ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  38. Misguided by nine-times · · Score: 2

    My personal opinion is that application developers are generally misguided and developing stupid applications. I make a point to occasionally look around at what apps are available on different platforms, and with all the glut of apps, they're generally not aimed at solving problems that need to be solved. There's always another runner game, or someone trying to make the next Angry Birds. For some reason, there have been a lot of new mail clients for OSX/iOS recently. There are a bunch of task/todo list apps that don't offer distinct features. Every once in a while, you'll see a bunch of apps released that seem to be taking aim at a particularly successful app-- Slack, WhatsApp, Instagram, whatever.

    So you take an existing app, rehash it with some gimmick, and hope to sell that for millions of dollars. Sometimes the existing app is actually useful (e.g. email), but often enough the app is silly and gimmicky to begin with (e.g. Flappy Bird). But in any case, the app doesn't add any value, and doesn't solve the problems with the existing app. And then a month later, some other developer has a newer more gimmicky app that also doesn't solve any problems with the original app. Or maybe it does solve some problems, but creates new ones.

    Now, there's a very good argument against my complaints: Even though I'm saying these apps are silly and useless, they seem to be what people want. The reason there are so many Flappy Bird clones is because so many people are buying them. However, if the problem now is that people aren't buying the apps, then I have a new counter-argument to that: No, people aren't buying them.

    It all just makes me sad because I work in IT, and I see problems every day that need to be solved. There's so much work that needs to be done, and all our money and development talent is going towards trying to make the next Snapchat.

  39. Re:No looking for new apps by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Server Auditor is in fact what I'm using on both my iPhone and Android tablet...

    But I'd cheerfully ditch it on the tablet if I could find that great terminal emulator.... the one SA includes/uses is *great* compared to the ones I've tried...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  40. app updates by worldthinker · · Score: 1

    My phone updates 12-20 apps a day. That's more than enough to keep up with.

  41. For every one of you by rsborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    2) charge me reasonably -- I'll pay up to $10 without flinching if it's actually useful. More if it's fabulous

    For every one of the "pay up front" customers, there's literally a dozen who will prefer to be nickeled and dimed. This probably goes double for games.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:For every one of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So provide two options. If it's 20% more code, or less, you're probably still going to be in front. And realistically it comes down to an extra build with compile-time options, and an extra clause in a stack of conditionals:

      if (feature_is_paid(x) { if (Nickle_And_Dime_Paid) { do_X() } }

      becomes

      if (feature_is_paid(x) { if (Nickle_And_Dime_Paid || PrePaid) { do_X() } }

    2. Re:For every one of you by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      Very, very few apps are even worth $0. The vast majority are worth even less, given the amount of time they waste to deliver a negative experience, and the time to get rid of them afterwards.

      I have paid over $10 for a couple of apps, but most of the ones I paid $1-$2 for have turned out to be worth MINUS$5 - I will probably not buy more than 2 more apps in my life.

      I hope that in a couple of years, it will be possible to stop kids accidentally buying Ferraris by fat-fingering the "shoot" button, the industry will have learned that in-game ads don't sell meaningful product. Shortly afterwards the ad-funded model will be dead. if we want to buy stuff, we search for it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:For every one of you by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      When considering this point, I can't help but think of Plants vs. Zombies.

      PvZ 1 was $10, if I recall. There might have been a small chance for some upsell, like extra consumable power-ups, but it was either almost entirely or entirely self-contained. You could get every plant, see every corner of the game, for that fixed price.

      PvZ2 is free, with lots of in-app purchases. The sum total of available purchases for unlockables (and I'm not talking about consumables here, but the buy-once plants, etc.) is well over $60. There's some other stuff that falls in the middle ground, and you can unlock by playing if you hoard your resources or buy outright if you don't have the resources. On top of that they have ads, regularly insert popups for sales, and are constantly pushing me to buy the bonus material. And they push watching more ads, for paltry amounts of in-game currency, which is optional but there and often kind of nagging.

      Comparing the two experiences, I am far happier with #1, even though I paid $10 for it while I've played #2 on and off for years without giving them a cent. If they had a $10 give-me-everything option, I'd buy it immediately, despite already having gone through basically everything already. I'm sure as hell not paying $60 for the full set, especially not when they've shown a trend of introducing even more new items now and then. I'd also be far happier with the game if it didn't have ads and other intrusive money-making schemes.

      Pop-Cap has been running it for years, so I guess they're convinced it makes *them* more money, but I'm not sure, if you talked to a bunch of players, that you wouldn't at least get an even split of those who would prefer to pay up front.

    4. Re:For every one of you by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Very very few people will pay $10 and most balk at paying over $0

      I would gladly pay $10 for a good app with a decent trial. I, however, don't want to pay $1 each just try 10 crappy apps that I'm going to immediately delete and I'm sure not going to pay $10 to try an app that I'm just going to delete. Apple and Google need to open their stores up and allow alternative business models. My preferred model would be free for the first 90 non-consecutive days. If I use your app for 90 days and I like it, then I will gladly pay $10 or even more. Very few apps reach this level of usefulness or quality. I would be ok with other models but there should be at a minimum a 100% automatic refund if an app is uninstalled in the first 24 hours. I would prefer 30 days but even 24 hours would greatly improve the quality of the apps out there. I shouldn't have to just eat the cost or jump thru hoops to get a refund for an app that obviously I don't even want. Apple and google both know when an app is uninstalled, just automatically credit me back if I immediately uninstall the app.

  42. That's because App Search sucks by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Most people I know look for new apps only by reputation of late. Basically only if someone they know tells them about it.

    Yeah, I know an anecdote is not a trend, but my feeling is the app market is simply saturated, which forces people to rely on other sources than the app store to decide and get one.

    App Search is terrible on all OSs. On Android you have to worry that a popular brand may have a bunch of me-too apps some of which are malicious. On iOS you just get unusable garbage floating to the top.

    I'm amazed that neither Apple nor Google have made App Stores more social. That's a strong use case for social networks - even if it's twitter-style where I "follow" devs or other luminaries and get their recommendations.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  43. Re:Who actually buys apps on a phone anyway? by damnbunni · · Score: 1

    Other than games, I've bought a few apps.

    Paid SSH clients with more functionality than free ones.

    A DOSbox manager, for ease in running DOS games. (Screw the crappy mobile Dungeon Keeper, I've got the original!)

    A remote desktop app that worked considerably better than VNC or RD.

    Plex. Plex is well worth the five bucks to be able to access all my stuff on my media server from anywhere.

    But most of my purchases are games or game-related, like emulators.

    I don't have an issue with games killing my battery normally, but my phone has a much larger battery than most so I have plenty of 'extra'.

  44. Ride the wave by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Apps merely went along for the ride when the smartphone market exploded.

    They were new, everyone just HAD to have one and the apps followed in their footsteps.

    Now that smartphones are ho-hum, so are the apps. I really don't care what the next generation of Android or IOS will be.

    I'm likely going to switch back to a dumb phone next time around. It will make calls and do basic texting and that's it. When I even bother to turn it on, that is.

    I am done with the $600 advertising and surveillance platform that masquarades as a phone.

  45. Yes--it's over by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    It's now about AI-voice type stuff, like Amazon Skills.

    Instead of apps, we're now building skills, tasks, context aware software that usually has a voice or touch interface.

  46. Apps follow hardware functionality by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I have a good-sized set of apps that make use of the capabilities of my phone and tablet. As those capabilities increase, I add apps that use the added features AND which I find useful. Coming soon: it will be interesting to see what that two-lens camera can do.

  47. IAPs by xushi · · Score: 1

    Coincidently, that's around the same time they started pushing really shitty unplayable/unusable apps, with In App Purchases down our throats... Bring back the old full-on apps and I'll gladly pay and use them.

  48. what price autonomy? by epine · · Score: 1

    I've got better things to do with my life than fight with Android's broken permission system.

    Need my phone state? Fuck off.

    Need my address book? Fuck off.

    Need my location and you're not showing a map? Fuck off.

    There, I just told 90% of the reason to own a smart phone to kindly fuck off.

    Welcome to my new dumb phone with the touch screen that constantly ass dials, because there's no proper switch on the dumb thing to lock this out.

    You'd think that was enough, but then I realized the audio quality is less than half as good as my old land line (1/4 as good when both ends are skanky connections).

    "But what crazy person uses these stupid things to communicate carefully?" I can hear you say. You're quite right. Recently I read Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age by Sherry Turkle. I was actually disappointed in this book. There are good bits where she focusses on her primary research, but too much of the book is not like this.

    One of the best things I read in there was the abject terror that many who are just now becoming adults express about having face to face conversations. Over and over it was "God grant me the ability to converse in person, but not yet." She interviewed these sorry young adults by the dozen.

    That goes a long way toward explaining why the device works the way it does, but it doesn't explain why we still call these things "phones". As a phone for actually talking to people, it's pretty shitty. My brother is on the road a lot, and he often calls me when he's driving. We seem to spend half the call navigating half-duplex. Next time he calls I might recommend we try old-timey radio protocol.

    ten four
    over
    come again

    This doesn't even get into the likelihood that my device has an open back door for CSIS or the NSA to listen in whenever they feel like it, for example to capture the audio of me keyboarding my passwords, soon to own me in every dimension. Help yourself guys. After you waste enough taxpayer money, you'll discover that my peccadilloes are painfully vanilla. In fact, I'm so boring, I don't even know why I bother to resent this. Yet I do.

    Cars used to represent independence / freedom from parental supervision. You'd complain that if your parents didn't give you enough access to the car you'd be ruined socially for life. It seems to me that nothing else could explain the Android security model. Give away your privacy to every app developer on the planet, but so long as my parents are excluded, I'll buy a new one every year until I turn thirty (the last five years on pure momentum).

    I admit that sometimes Swype is kind of cool, in a crippled kind of way: it lets me input text at about 1/4 the speed that I can type on a regular keyboard. I used Runkeeper with my Pebble watch for one summer, and it was okay. Then this happened:

    Fitness App Runkeeper Secretly Tracks Users At All Times, Sends Data to Advertisers

    Now FitnessKeeper is on my "fuck off" list, too.

    My wife and I lean toward environmentalism, so we make it a point to own only one one vehicle, and sometimes we have to juggle our joint transportation. We often exchange text messages to make this work. That task is now 90% of the "smart phone" use case I've got left, and valuable enough that I haven't thrown my smart phone into the trash can. I'd suffer a fair amount of inconvenience not to carry this lump of disappointment around with me all day long, but not so much as to require a second vehicle. Planet comes first, the voluntary hair shirt of disgust comes a distant second.

    My smart phone is the most disappointing impressive thing I've ever owned.

  49. Get a clue, CNN app by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Most apps are like shifty browsers where you can't zoom in.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  50. Yeah, it certainly can't be by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it certainly can't be that most new smartphone buyers actually replace their ageing dumb- or feature phone and uses it just like the old one. IOW without "apps"

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  51. Storage Space by DivineKnight · · Score: 2

    And it has nothing to do with the lack of storage space on currently shipping, top of the line devices...such as Samsung's Galaxy S7, whose makes think that USAsians only really need 32GB of on board storage space, and Europeans / other parties might want just a tiny bit more in the form of 64GB of storage. True, you can use a MicroSD card to increase storage, but it's not Android storage...unless you use a hack / enable that special feature, at which point, you lose the ability to transfer files to and from the phone the MicroSD slot (as the slot / card is now 'welded' together, so far as Android is concerned). As a bonus, on this particular model, it's dual SIM, or SIM + microSD...so, still juggling stuff if you go abroad.

    We have 10TB HDs, 2TB SSDs, 200 GB microSDs...and the equivalent of 640KB or 8GB of RAM as storage space as the shipping standard for Android devices. "No one is downloading any more apps!" -> "Plants vs. Zombies 2 eats like 1 GB of storage space on my phone!"

  52. Dev with only enough cash to launch on 1 platform by tepples · · Score: 1

    6) Make sure you make both Android and iOS versions for games or chat or other device-to-device applications.

    Say a hobbyist or bootstrap-funded startup wants to launch on one platform and use the revenue from users of that platform to fund a port to the other platform. Should such a developer instead just stay out of the market?

  53. Activation and protocol version mismatch by tepples · · Score: 1

    Appstores should always allow me to download the version I paid for.

    And then watch the version not work once it tries to connect to the Internet service on which it relies:

    Protocol version mismatch
    This happens when the service has been
    updated but the app hasn't. Google Play
    Store may have an updated app.
    On the next screen, tap "Update".

    [ Open Play Store ]

    In the desktop world I would have an install CD or I would burn a backup copy

    But when reinstalling from CD or restoring from backup, the copy would try to activate itself as a condition of use and apply an update as a condition of activation.

  54. Expansion vs. consumable by tepples · · Score: 1

    The problem with mobile in-app purchases is not the try-before-you-buy model as much as consumables. Entitlement IAPs, which persist on a user's account after having been bought once, resemble the "shareware" model used for Doom and the "expansion" model used for Warcraft II. What irks experienced users are "consumable" IAPs that need to be re-purchased after having been used, causing games to be balanced to not be fun unless the player continually buys "gems" or "smurfberries".

  55. App boom crashing? Is there and app for that? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Well, cellphones are arrived.

    You will have to compete to earn your money based on the merits of your software, now.

    'Best get started.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  56. A permission for each app by tepples · · Score: 1

    Adobe could have broken out support for camera API into a separate app that exposes a service to the main app. This way, users of Android pre-Marshmallow who don't want to use camera features can opt out of the camera permission by not installing the app, and those who do are taken to Google Play Store to install the additional features.

    1. Re:A permission for each app by johanw · · Score: 1

      Pre-Android 6 users can use XPrivacy.

    2. Re:A permission for each app by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, they could technically have, but it would go against all of their goals for their business. They want to provide a superior e-publishing platform to HTML 5 and they have no reason to accept artificial impediments like "load a separate app to enable the camera". If a lot of people told them they would not accept the platform if it included a camera permission, they might not have done that, but I doubt very many people did.

      If you really care about this, you should make it your practice to use Free Software as much as possible (and "free" in this context means liberty, not that you didn't pay for it). Proprietary software makers just won't ever take your needs seriously, and you can't trust them anyway.

    3. Re:A permission for each app by tepples · · Score: 1

      XPrivacy requires XPosed, and XPosed requires root, and root usually requires a wipe and sometimes requires purchasing a whole new phone.

  57. Chase QuickDeposit by tepples · · Score: 1

    Apps for my bank and credit cards.

    And for those who say a website is good enough for that, it's sort of hard to scan the front and back of a personal check that a relative wrote you without using the camera.

  58. Re:No looking for new apps by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    And if the person "looses" the remote in the sense of throwing it at the TV during low-quality programming?

  59. Duh, no by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Applications are the software you run on top of an operating system. This was the common terminology I recall from the 80s and 90s, and it still applies (pun intended) to today's "smart"phones.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  60. so sad by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    you mean we're going to see fewer of those apps that allow you to recharge your phone by leaving the screen facing the sun? or putting the phone in a microwave? darn.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  61. Would you prefer geoblocks to unintelligible ads? by tepples · · Score: 1

    There are too many apps which present you with [...] unintelligible (aka in other languages) [...] ads.

    Say you are using the English version of an app, but all the advertisers are in Brazil and Portugal, so all you see are advertisements in Portuguese. Would you prefer Netflix- or Hulu-style geoblocking, where an application refuses to start, instead showing the error message "The application could not open because there are no sponsors for your market"?

  62. A TV can show only one program at a time by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's really weird how an 65" HDTV will hang on the wall in a home, and yet you'll find that same home filled with people watching Netflix on a cool smartphone they bought because it has an "HD" screen.

    Of course a "home filled with people" and only one HDTV will have people watching on smartphones, unless they all want to watch the same program. The prediction in Back to the Future Part II that split-screen TV would become a common feature by 2015 unfortunately did not come to pass.

    1. Re:A TV can show only one program at a time by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It's really weird how an 65" HDTV will hang on the wall in a home, and yet you'll find that same home filled with people watching Netflix on a cool smartphone they bought because it has an "HD" screen.

      Of course a "home filled with people" and only one HDTV will have people watching on smartphones, unless they all want to watch the same program. The prediction in Back to the Future Part II that split-screen TV would become a common feature by 2015 unfortunately did not come to pass.

      This isn't the 1960s, where each home can only afford to buy one TV that weighs 400 pounds and takes up half a room. Most homes own more than one television. Quite a few homes almost maintain the ratio of one per room. HDTVs are cheap enough now that if people want to watch multiple channels, they'll just buy multiple televisions. Some in the same room to create a video "wall".

      My HDTV, made in 2008, has both split-screen (presenting multiple inputs, including PC), as well as PIP. We've had the technology for years.

  63. ServiceWorker requires HTTPS and non-Safari by tepples · · Score: 1

    Their is a new API which is now supported by all the latest browsers:
    [ServiceWorker]

    For one thing, ServiceWorker requires HTTPS, and HTTPS requires a certificate from a CA, and the CAs whose root certificates are included with browsers won't issue certificates for machines on a private LAN. Do ServiceWorker tutorials mention how to test an application using ServiceWorker over a LAN, with the web server on the development workstation and the client on a smartphone or tablet running a smartphone OS?

    For another, the page you linked mentions that Safari doesn't support ServiceWorker, so you'd still need a native app to reach iOS users.

  64. Would you prefer to lose data when it rings? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Need my phone state? Fuck off.

    I've read that apps request phone state for two reasons: so that a game, music player, or video player can pause when you get a call, or so that an app can start saving your most recent changes to the document you're working on to flash memory before Android OOM-kills the app to make room for the the dialer app. How would you prefer a game, music player, or video player to react when you receive a call? And would you prefer a document-oriented app to lose your latest changes, or waste your battery and wear your flash memory out continuously writing your changes to flash memory, just to avoid this permission?

    Need my address book? Fuck off.

    If you try four or five different email apps, do you prefer to enter your contacts manually into each?

  65. Data on a phone is more limited by tepples · · Score: 1

    if I can do it from a browser on my desktop/laptop why the hell do I need an app to do it on my phone?

    If it's desktop vs. phone at all, then the difference is that you're more likely to be carrying your phone than your laptop on your person. Since netbooks were discontinued at the end of 2012, it has become more difficult to buy a laptop to be carried everywhere, as laptops larger than 10.1" need a bigger bag that's more likely to attract thieves.

    If it's the fact that a particular task is done in a web browser on a desktop but needs a native app on a phone, the difference might be that Internet data transfer on your desktop is unlimited or nearly so, but data on your phone is tightly metered. Compare a 300 GB/mo plan from Comcast to a 3 GB/mo plan from a cellular carrier. Because Safari for iOS doesn't support ServiceWorker, native applications have far better offline support than web applications.

    Oh, and a financial calculator that I need for an exam I'm going to be taking tomorrow.

    I thought exams prohibited the use of touch-screen devices out of fear of cheating. I know the SAT does.

  66. Who funds updates? by tepples · · Score: 1

    I would happily pay a one-time fee, but app subscriptions are silly.

    Without a subscription, who would fund the continued development of updated versions of an app, especially one whose user base is plateauing (as smartphone sales are according to the featured article)?

    1. Re:Who funds updates? by psyclone · · Score: 1

      A valid point for some users - but I'm happy with the current feature set and would only need security issues or critical bugs fixed, which my one-time $4.99 should get me for a few years.

      If they released a new version a few years later with lots of features I wanted, then I could pay to upgrade.

      I know why app developers love subscriptions, as it's a steady source of revenue and often much, much more than one-time sales, even at premium pricing. But it sucks for consumers.

  67. Re:Would you prefer geoblocks to unintelligible ad by war4peace · · Score: 1

    If all the advertisers are in Brasil or Portugal, then the app I use in countries where this language isn't spoken should not be displayed.
    Having them displayed in unintelligible languages does not add any value and is even more annoying than the usual amount.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  68. Re:Would you prefer geoblocks to unintelligible ad by tepples · · Score: 1

    If the ad is not displayed, then the app displays an error message and begs for an IAP to subscribe to ad-free use, sticking everything you've done in the app behind a paywall. Are you fine with this? Or by "should not be displayed" did you mean that it should not appear in the App Store or other platform's counterpart at all?