

I Prefer Safari to Content Apps On The iPad - cwan
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/05/i-prefer-safari-to-content-apps-on-the-ipad.html

======
stcredzero
Content Apps I use:

I use iBooks and the Kindle app a lot. The _interface_ they present is just
better for reading books. I can also highlight a word and look it up or see a
mention of a book and quickly check it out on a website, so there's no loss of
interactivity for me. I much prefer WeatherBug to websites because of response
time. Maps is also indispensable, and I think more reliable than a Web App
would be. Now Playing also has a superior interface. It's basically a mashup
of a Google Maps search for nearby theaters with Rotten Tomatoes ratings.
Netflix is indispensable, of course.

As for Web apps I use instead of local apps: FlightStats, Google Voice, and
Google Reader. Google Voice is only available as a Web App and isn't really a
content app, but the other two I've chosen because I think they have a
_superior interface_ compared with the other options I tried.

Most of the rest of the apps I use frequently are utilities, toys and games.

These facts about my App use corroborate Fred's observations. _It's about the
UX!_ However you can achieve a superior UX, do it, but remember that you must
beat the web. This is harder to do on the more comfortable screen of the iPad.
On the iPhone, it's easy, because the screen is cramped.

The biggest threats to Apple right now are HTML5 and NaCl. If those are widely
accepted, then multitouch tablets will quickly become commodity, just as PCs
became a commodity platform to run Windows on.

------
c1sc0
I've had my iPad for only two days and I've only used it as a 'window on the
web' : I have apps like ft installed but Almost never use them. After getting
the iPad I realized that a 100 dollar slate with ONLY a browser would be
enough for me.

~~~
Terretta
For an even better "window on the web" experience, grab the "iCab" browser.
For reading Hacker News, switch on the "open links to different domains in
background tab" option.

In addition to desktop style tabs, it also offers "offline" mode caching
(visited pages are saved to a local cache so they work when you tab back to
them or re-run the app, even if you've gone offline), ad blocking, and more.

------
dpnewman
The NPR ipad app is simple, elegant, and fantastic. For me a much better
experience than the web site is or could be. I can rip through content at the
speed of my mind. So I think the issue is design. Good iPad ux is not a given
- designers need to consider that the keys are clarity, organization and speed
of access.

~~~
jonknee
I've heard a lot of people rave on the NPR app, but the skinny text column
kills it for me. I have a nice big screen, but NPR limits text to about a 3"
column. This is true even for stories without an image which is especially
maddening (a half empty screen with some silly share content buttons). When I
first used it I thought it was a bug, but apparently that's what they want it
to look like.

I greatly prefer the NY Times app.

~~~
dpnewman
hmm the text width hadn't bothered me but that's an understandable critique.
what i love about the app most is the playlist - so i can queue up any amount
of audio and let er roll while i code.

------
commieneko
There are really very few rules or useful generalizations, at least yet. The
game is still very new. And much depends not on the properties of a class,
which are still _very_ fuzzy, but on the specifics of a particular
implementation.

For example, the Facebook app for the iphone is in many ways a better
experience compared to the web site. This is more of an indictment against the
website, which is simply, and unutterably horrible, no matter how useful or
fun it might be to many people. (The lesson here would seem to be that killer
content/functionality trumps nearly any other consideration.)

And for reading the web I often use NetNewsWire, an app that is an RSS reader
with its own built in browser. Does that count as an app or as a browser? This
is much better than any of the browsers with built in RSS readers. Again, how
does that count.

edit: When I examine my own usage, I consume books, comics, manga, music, and
video in special purpose apps. For mainstream news I usually use a web based
aggregator (Google News.) An exception is The New York Times which has a very
nice iPhone/iPod Touch app that is great and as a bonus buffers a days content
so that I can read when I'm offline. If magazine publishers were looking for a
model that app would be a nice place to start. For NewZ (blogs, aggregators,
etc.) I use an RSS reader and then a web browser to pick up stuff like Hacker
News, Reddit, or Slashdot that would simply bloat an RSS reader. I have tried
apps to follow Reddit and Hack News, and on the iPhone/iPod Touch they rock.
On the iPad the experience is a mixed bag.

------
Groxx
I must ask:

As a general rule, how many here _don't_ prefer Safari over web-pages-as-apps?
A few exceptional cases aside, I'd be willing to bet Safari is a better
browser than whatever "they" can cook up.

~~~
mechanical_fish
The flaw in your question is the word "here", as in "people here on HN".

Dangrover made an important point in his currently-on-the-HN-front-page blog
post:

 _I made this crazy argument to a friend of mine over beer and he countered
"but don't people know what websites are?" It made me think._

 _Well, no, as a matter of fact, not really. The web is messy. Webpages link
around to each other and, if you're not tech savvy, you can't really keep
track of which one you're on or if it's safe to put your bank password into
it. Most people don't know if they should search for them or type them into
the URL bar._

There is one vital feature of the web-page-as-app: navigation. The "Frypaper"
app that I downloaded yesterday is guarsnteed to lead me to Stephen Fry's
blog, and not to a phishing site. It will do so in one click. It is helpfully
labeled with a big picture of Fry with a silly-looking but eye-catching
luminous green glow surrounding him, so that I can't help but find the app
when I am looking for it. And once I'm inside the Frypaper app I will see the
Fry-endorsed experience. I will not have to wonder whether my oddball browser
is rendering his stuff right. I will not have to inform Google of anything I
do.

The cruel fact is that the first step in web navigation - finding somewhere to
start clicking - has terrible usability for non-hackers. People don't
understand what URLs are. Even those who understand them can barely read them.
Google has made billions of dollars exploiting this fact; even I find things
on Wikipedia by tabbing to the search bar, typing a word, then clicking the
Wikipedia link on the ensuing Google page. (It is, famously, always there.)
The amazing thing is that Apple has made the app install process so seamless
that apps have better usability than browser bookmarks. And that's why they
are better than plain browsers... At least for people who don't read HN.

Having said that: I agree with the OP that all the CD-rommish nonsense that
app designers put us through actually _detracts_ from the experience. And I do
wish it was possible to install browser enhancements on the iPad that
persisted from app-to-app; e.g. if I open up a web page from my Twitter client
I want to be able to use 1password in that web page.

~~~
rooshdi
"The amazing thing is that Apple has made the app install process so seamless
that apps have better usability than browser bookmarks."

Exactly my sentiments. So much so, I decided to start a better navigational
tool for browsers at favetop.com. Right now, browser navigation is really a
turn-off for some users and I think offering them an easier and more stream-
lined process will help them dramatically. Like you stated, this is one of the
major reasons native apps have become so appealing to casual users. The ease
of the experience is a powerful thing.

------
johnrob
Is the app store trend finally showing a crack? At some point, devices are
going to discover the same thing that PCs already know - web apps are better
than native software for most things. Once flash arrives for real this trend
will really start setting in.

~~~
Groxx
"most" is definitely debatable. My browser serves for social and searching
almost exclusively. Everything else I use an application for, because it runs
faster and has significantly better persistent storage.

------
msg
_4) i don't like the various different user interfaces i have to get to know.
i am used to the web browser interface. i know where everything is. if there
was one standard magazine app UI and one standard newspaper app UI, i might
feel differently. but for now, i can't be bothered learning a new UI for every
piece of content i want to consume._

I know it's been said many times, but if you agree with this statement about
the uniform interface of the browser, you understand the appeal of the one-
interface-to-rule-them-all of Emacs.

------
fleaflicker
_4) if there was one standard magazine app UI and one standard newspaper app
UI, i might feel differently._

apple (or somebody else who can nail this UI) should develop these apps and
start selling content like the book/itunes stores.

~~~
younata
well, until apple does, all that means to me is that there is a huge market
out there for an ipad/iphone/ipod touch app that does news better than safari.

~~~
Groxx
which contains the _massive_ hurdle of either parsing all news sites through
all changes, or getting the newspapers to work with you / produce an API for
getting content.

Good luck to all who try, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

------
jteo
The vast majority of computer users don't know how the internet and its tubes
work.

