
Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App - jenthoven
https://www.atrium.co/blog/founders-should-build-website-not-mobile-app/
======
casper345
80% of apps are uninstalled in the first 10min (especially if they ask for
information or creating an account). Once uninstalled very unlikely they will
ever install again.

In my dev shop, I always advise clients to look into website MVP over apps
unless IT IS CRITICAL to the functionality. Websites can always bring back ppl
who were initially uninterested. Faster development/instant updates. Better
tracking and UX anazyling.

Edit: also better collaboration tools.

~~~
ravenstine
I want to agree with you, but how many people are regularly surfing the web?

I actually think most people still are, but I keep getting this impression
from HN and others in the tech industry that "everyone is on their phone and
using apps", and I've yet to see any convincing research into the use of web
browsers over the years. I don't know what I'm really supposed to think, but
it seems that a lot of us in the industry are convinced that mobile browsing
is "dead" or at least sits on the bleachers while apps do basically everything
and use the browser as a webview for minor things.

I'd love to believe that most people aren't merely sitting on Instagram and
Reddit all day, never touching their browser.

~~~
skilled
For the life of me I cannot imagine how painful it must be to spend your time
only in apps like Reddit and Instagram. That sounds painfully boring and
isolating.

I am the exact opposite as I spend all of my mobile time in the browser.

It's a complex study to perform it with any kind of accuracy. And if there's
any concrete studies done this already then I would love to see citations.

~~~
swah
How do you start your browsing day? I always start from the twitter or reddit
app. Most people don't even know the "web", they just stay on Whatsapp,
Instagram and Facebook the whole day. (I wish this wasn't the case since this
makes so difficult to little people to compete on the space).

~~~
plaidfuji
Not the OP but I strongly favor browser over apps whenever possible. I’m a
news junkie so my progression usually goes:

Washington Post (I live in DC), WSJ, NYT, Hacker News, Maybe Facebook, If
really bored, will compare Drudge Report / HuffPo / Fox News just to see the
extremes,

Back to HN, eventually feel browsing guilt and go do something productive

------
ecp9
I don't even bother installing apps anymore, I don't have time to research
whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS.
I got my core 10 apps and haven't bought a new one in a year.

~~~
airstrike
> I don't even bother installing apps anymore, I don't have time to research
> whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous
> TOS.

I'm going out on a limb but I'd wager you're not exactly representative of the
general userbase for which apps are developed.

~~~
glenneroo
I would take that even further and venture a guess that 99% of HN readers are
not representative of the intended general userbase of 99% of the apps for
ios/android.

~~~
dave5104
Also called the Malkovich Bias.

~~~
sslayer
I disagree with the 99% estimate, I too take the same approach, and recommend
the same to those who will listen. I would venture that number to be at least
80%

~~~
rock_hard
So you are saying that out of the 3B smart phone users in the world 600M will
never install a app ever because they fear the abuse of their privacy or some
horrendous TOS?

Yeah, no!

I think your intuitive judgement failed you here

~~~
Retric
A non trivial number of people don’t realize you can install apps. I know
several non tech 65+ iPhone users the vast majority don’t use any app not
installed on the phone.

Young kids seem to install apps all the time, but parents quickly learn not to
let them spend any money on in app purchasing.

~~~
coldtea
> _A non trivial number of people don’t realize you can install apps. I know
> several non tech 65+ iPhone users the vast majority don’t use any app not
> installed on the phone._

Those don't matter much for the concerns of TFA, as they're unlikely to use
some new fangled web app either...

------
shams93
Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device
with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to
get people to install your app just to try it out. With a progressive web app
if they like your app they can add it to their device home screen without
installing via the app store and without using up space on their device. Also
don't need to pay Apple $100 a year but you have the same benefits as a native
app. Now with wasm you can even include native performance from a progressive
web app.

~~~
endorphone
We've been hearing the same pitch for literally years. Heck, I've made some of
them myself: "This is it, people! Native apps have been rendered unnecessary!"

No PWA competes with a native experience. Not performance wise, not usability
wise, and ultimately for the developer not even development wise. It may still
make a lot of sense, and there are a lot of arguments for web apps, but the
enthusiasm in this discussion seems disconnected from reality.

Indeed, right now we're seeing a big uptick in Instant Apps on Android -- go
to a webpage and it actually loads a native app -- and I fully expect the same
to appear on iOS.

There is a bit of app exhaustion, though I'd say it's much more significant on
Android where users have been taught that it's user beware. It certainly isn't
a technical limit, though.

~~~
naravara
>No PWA competes with a native experience. Not performance wise, not usability
wise, and ultimately for the developer not even development wise.

How much of a usability advantage does an app for, say, IMDB offer that the
regular website doesn't? Or the loyalty card apps that a lot of grocery stores
and coffee shops use now?

A lot of apps on the market are functionally just wrappers put around a poorly
optimized website. They'd be better off putting their efforts towards making a
great experience on the mobile web instead of trend-chasing.

In the iOS environment Apple could actually help here through a simple
awareness campaign. You can save website bookmarks as icons on your home
screen as it is, but this functionality is little known and not easily
discoverable.

~~~
oftenwrong
Companies saddle their mobile web experience with excessive animations, gobs
of dynamic elements, screen-hogging navigation bars/sharing buttons/overlays,
poorly-implemented infinite scrolling, etc, etc... and then they conclude that
mobile web sites are bad and native apps are good.

People have forgotten that you can build a website that isn't a user-hostile
SPA train-wreck.

~~~
xd1936
Amen. Twitter[1] and Starbucks[2] have both built gorgeous PWAs in the last
couple of years that are perfect replacements for 98% of a native app's
functionality. It can be done, people!

1\. [https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-
sourc...](https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-
source/2017/how-we-built-twitter-lite.html)

2\.
[https://twitter.com/davidbrunelle/status/905931990444244995](https://twitter.com/davidbrunelle/status/905931990444244995)

~~~
charleslmunger
Twitter's mobile web site is the most unreliable site I encounter with any
frequency. Fully 80% of the links I get to Twitter fail to load, telling me to
try again, which only works when I fully refresh the page.

I don't know how it compares to their native app.

------
sinatra
IMHO, the reasons mentioned are not very convincing. Your goal, when starting
a product, is to find whether you serve a real user need or not. So, start
with a website or a mobile app depending on what suits your users needs
better. Where would a user naturally go (web or mobile) for that need? That's
the platform you start with.

~~~
nostrademons
Very frequently, the right answer for an MVP is something like "an e-mail
newsletter" or "a Salesforce extension" or "a CSV file" or "an IDE plug-in" or
"throwing a pizza party for your target market and performing the service for
them yourself". I've seen startups charge $3K+/month to dump a CSV file on a
client's FTP server. Go where the user can most conveniently make use of your
product; for a lot of businesses, that is neither app nor website.

~~~
sinatra
I agree. In many cases, don't start with either (app or site). In other cases
(or in cases where you've grown up to the point of needing an app or site),
start with one that is right for your user.

------
avree
>An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is
less than $10/month.

"A developer license is $99/year, but a website is less than $120/year!"

Very weird statement.

~~~
allenu
Even at $10 a year, it's a very weak statement to make about costs. If you
can't afford to pay $90 more a year on something simple for your startup, you
have other problems.

~~~
dbancajas
My thought as well. 90$ won't make or break someone's startup.

------
sjroot
The real answer to this question? (Surprise!) It depends.

I have worked on a side project for the last year or so that will have a
website and a mobile application. It has social elements, so ultimately I
decided to prioritize the mobile application, because that is where users have
access to their contacts, and do most of their communication with their
friends and family. There are, of course, other business ideas that would be
better suited to a website (or electron app?): work-related tools, dashboards,
etc.

A lot of people on here are talking about PWAs which are amazing, but iOS
Safari is missing the Web Push API. Unfortunately, that makes the effort
nearly futile because you have to build a separate mobile app anyway.

If you are an Apple engineer and can help get that shipped, I will buy you a
nice dinner. If you're an Apple recruiter, hire me so I can help ship it! :)

~~~
mcny
> If you are an Apple engineer and can help get that shipped, I will buy you a
> nice dinner. If you're an Apple recruiter, hire me so I can help ship it! :)

Not that I know anything not known publicly but I suspect the reason Apple iOS
Safari does not have Web Push API is not because they lack developer resources
to write the code to get it done. Apple is under tremendous pressure to
increase revenue from its "services" right now so it seems a bad time to
strengthen PWAs.

~~~
palidanx
Wouldn't you say though if that push notifications were allowed PWAs would
cannibalize the revenue of the ios app store? It doesn't seem like apple would
have much incentive to do this as PWAs would eventually compete with their own
platform.

~~~
scarface74
Apple makes most of its app revenue from in app purchases and most of that is
for consumables for games.

The types of apps that could be a PWA wouldnt make Apple any money.

------
sgt
"No one wants to download apps anymore" I stopped reading there. The major
advantage of the App Store (primarily for consumer apps though) is the fact
that there's some kind of filtering at place. If I find a quality app, I want
to actually pay for it. In fact, if it's a good app - then I prefer to pay, as
it often ensures some kind of continuity in the app's lifecycle.

~~~
M2Ys4U
> The major advantage of the App Store (primarily for consumer apps though) is
> the fact that there's some kind of filtering at place.

Hah. Maybe when nearly every app doesn't have a dozen trackers pinging off
before the app has even opened you can talk.

~~~
wvenable
Right because web apps don't have dozen trackers on them.

------
cntlzw
How about start with a product that people would actually use? If it is a
website, fine. If it is a mobile app, fine. Don't sacrifice business
opportunities because of early tech choices.

~~~
csours
To me, you have to have a really damn good reason to start with an app.
Distribution is hell.

~~~
clarky07
how so? click a button and download to device? now you have an icon that the
user sees every day. How is the web better than that?

~~~
kkhire
there's a big difference between typing a URL into a web browser & downloading
an app:

1\. go to the app store 2\. search for it and find the right one 3\. make sure
you have the right amount of space for it 4\. download it 5\. place it on the
5th screen of your phone 6\. never see it

~~~
rimliu
You can invent the same convuted path for everything. Ok, for the PWA: go to
Google. Find the pwa you want. Make sure you did not exceed your data cap.
Figure out how to add it to home screen. It will end app at screen #5 and will
never be found again.

How is that easier? What if you want to sell your app?

Real scenario for native apps is much more simple: you get either the link to
the app or the banner. Tap on it, tap get, tap open. That’s it.

Btw, there is an app offloading, which provides you space by getting rid of
the app you don’t really use. And for the missing space argument to be even a
little bit valid you must talk about huge apps, which probsbly means they
provide functionality you could not replicate with a PWA.

------
t0astbread
I'm gonna play devils advocate here and say web apps aren't as pleasant to use
on mobile phones as mobile apps and that's why mobile apps are still a thing.

I'm especially looking at things like touch gestures and native integrations
(launcher icons, notifications, "share with" providers, maybe even a home
screen widget). I know PWAs are a thing but afaik they don't solve all of the
above problems or don't solve them well (for example there are still
inconsistencies as to what is a PWA and how PWAs are handled across Firefox
and Chrome).

~~~
osrec
Try [https://usebx.com/app](https://usebx.com/app) \- we built it 2 years ago.
It's a PWA, and our users find it better than many native alternatives. I
think it's all in the execution really.

~~~
theonething
Beautiful app. Do you have a blog post about the development details like tech
stack, etc?

~~~
osrec
Thank you :)

Not currently, but it's not a bad idea to write something. As soon as I get a
spare few hours, I will put something together. Feel free to drop me an email
(see profile) and I'll notify you when it's done.

------
NightlyDev
Most of my mobile users(64 %) has the page added to the home screen, and it's
awesome.

There is however one problem in all things web: Apple.

The amount of bugs in Safari on iOS is incredible and the developers should be
ashamed of their work. Safari is literally worse than IE6 was.

But sure, users can just switch to Chrome.. Oh, wait, we're talking iOS here,
so there is only one engine, and that engine is broken. So the only option is
to get a decent phone, aka not an iPhone.

Like, how freaking hard can it be to make a browser that doesn't need to be
restarted just to make touch or keyboard working again?

~~~
fermuch
Is there a way to know when a site is loaded from the home screen instead of
the browser?

~~~
EmielMols
Yes, window.navigator.standalone

------
softfalcon
I feel like this is coming from a good place. They're trying to help the
majority of devs choose the right platform for their project to be the most
successful.

As many before me have commented, the choice of platform depends on your
situation, the technical limitations that come with it, and what kind of
experience you want to deliver.

You have to use what makes sense and delivers what you need to satisfy your
users. End of story.

Silver bullet solutions make a good headline, but they rarely address all
possible concerns of a specific problem. Especially not with a broad audience.

------
let_var
IMO it's a misleading premise to begin with "Start with a website, not a
mobile". One should try to stay true to target audience. If your product
justifies "Mobile first" approach, mobile app is what one should start with.

Few years ago, I started with a website prototype with an end goal of porting
UI elements and business logic to mobile. With some exception of reusing
business logic, most UI elements required redo.

------
tomphoolery
My main issue with app development, as I've been saying for close to a decade
now, is that with _any_ app dev, you're automatically at the whim of whoever
created the platform. Google, Apple, or Microsoft. We say a lot of things
about how Google is trying to "take over" the web, but as long as there are
Firefox users, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. No one owns the web,
that's why it's still the best place for a startup.

Especially Apple. Their iOS app development team uses the App Store as a
proving ground for ideas that work well, then re-implement the features most
users love in a crappy/cartoon-style way and attempt to out-promote the
original idea.

Examples:

    
    
      Todos => Reminders,
      Flipboard => News,
      EasyMeasure => Measure,
      Skype => FaceTime

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your position, but those examples for
Apple are really poor ones, imo. Except for Measure, all of those are
obviously features or default apps that a platform is going to offer. The fact
that Apple didn’t have a reminders app at launch and then they added one later
hardly means they ripped off “Todos”, which I’ve never even heard of. And
Skype isn’t primarily an iOS app at all, which makes it a poor example of the
phenomenon you’re describing. Also, Apple doesn’t make any money off those
apps, so I’m really, really skeptical that they’re scanning the App Store for
successful apps they can rip off.

------
dlandis
> Web products get internationalization for free, which is important for a
> small, cash-strapped team.

I like the article but this statement is not true. Internationalization is
quite a big topic and there is no way to automatically make a site
internationalized for "free".

------
craftoman
Don't forget that clients always get the lastest updated version of the app. I
mean, I remember that everytime you decide to change something on the API,
things go really bad because of the old versions and people just give you
negative feedback because they didn't update the app. You have to be extremely
cautious.

------
ptx
There are some very strange arguments in this article.

One claimed advantage of a web app is: "An App Store developer license costs
$99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month". Now, correct me
if I'm wrong, but surely a year has 12 months, making it actually _more_
expensive? I guess it's an advantage if you expect your business to fail
within 10 months?

Also: "Browsers automatically translate text, so web developers don’t need to
do much extra work to reach foreign users."

...

What? Presumably the author speaks no languages other than English. Developers
of native applications could easily run their UI strings through machine
translation if they wanted to - but nobody wants that because the results are
at best unprofessional and usually nonsensical gibberish.

~~~
nnd
Surely it meant to say, $10/ _year_ for domain registration? Either way, this
is still nonsense. Besides App Store developer license can be reused for other
apps and comes with other additional benefits.

------
shehryarrr
Depends on your applications use cases and what is needed to make it function.
No matter what you're doing you should look for the quickest and cheapest
option as long as it fulfills your needs. If I'm building pro grade video
editing software I'm likely going to pick desktop technologies, if I'm
building something that requires location or a camera I'm going to pick native
apps. If the service is just reading data from a server and maybe writing a
little with not too much interaction probably a mobile website or a PWA.

Not new advice, just pick the right tool for the job, not what's flashy.

------
0xCMP
There is one side of me that wishes more things were Mobile Apps. On the other
hand, it's hard to argue that worse is better here and that any founder should
focus on Web unless it's not possible to do it on the web (yet).

I'd much prefer a native app (or actually feels native; Well done RN is good
enough for me), but the cost of creating and maintaining one is often too high
when you don't know what will work.

As a web developer (react, etc.) I kind of wish I could have more time to work
on native apps instead.

~~~
icebraining
Is it a matter of UI? I find it interesting that the "web app with native UI"
model never took on. There were a few tries (e.g. XUL), and now Expo seems to
be a version of that for RN (though focused on testing), yet for various -
seemingly circumstantial - reasons it never became a fully fledged alternative
to browser apps and installed apps.

~~~
rimliu
Because it solves no problems. Unless you consider “we want web tech
everyhere” to be a valid problem. “Cross-platform” development may look like a
problem worth solving, but the dolution is a lie. If you use native UI you
will have to deal with a native tech to a degree. Is (cost + pain)/benefits
worth it—that’s up to you. But seeing how RN stuggled with the thing that’s
trivial in native—navigation stack—I’d stay away. Also these bridged
technologies will always lag behind and can be really painful after
significant updates to UIKit.

------
Spivak
> An App Store developer license costs $99/year, whereas a Namecheap domain is
> less than $10/month.

I think you mean $10/year.

~~~
wvenable
Web hosting will cost more than $99/year so not all the costs of the web
application are factored into this article.

~~~
johnday
Sure, but there's a bit of apples and oranges here - for example, any modern
internet-connected app would also need a server backend.

~~~
wvenable
Also I just installed Daylio which is a cool little diary application. They
have no web app, it's mobile app only. It backs up your data to Google Drive.
It has no server component, no signup, etc.

Admittedly there are limitations of not having a server backend but for a MVP
that's another way to go.

~~~
jkchu
A native app with no server backend is the same as a web application with no
server backend. In that case you really just need to put those static web
files into an S3 bucket and route a domain to it. The cost is very low for
this.

~~~
wvenable
Athough localstorage exists, I'd be very hesitant to store anything
important/permanent there. So your no server web app will be pretty limited.

------
briandear
If $100 per year for the Apple Developer program is too much, is whatever
you’d be making an app for even worth it? Not saying app-first is or isn’t the
answer, just questioning a criticism of an expense that’s comes out to $8.25
per month.

~~~
TACIXAT
That expense isn't high, but you also have to own (unless something has
changed in recent years) a Apple device to develop on and an Apple device to
test on. I own a Linux laptop and an Android phone. If I wanted to write an
iOS app I think I would be needing about $2k in devices.

------
verbify
That's my feelings, although I've seen so many successful app-only startups
that I feel I'm missing something that these startups grasp.

E.g. in the UK Monzo, an app-only bank, won't allow you to access your
statements, do transfers, or pretty much do anything to manage your account on
the web, and is one of the most popular challenger banks.

~~~
wvenable
Most of the points in the article are for the benefit of the developer (easier
updating, lower dev cost, fewer platforms) and not for the benefit of the end
user. If the goal is to make a product better for yourself then make a web
application. If your goal is to make a product users will like then make
mobile applications.

The article talks about how users don't install apps but signing up for a
website (enter email, invent new password, wait for password vertification
email, click link) is a far larger barrier to entry than just finding the app
in the store and installing it.

~~~
guntars
Just because everyone and their mother adds a signup flow just to be able to
use their web app doesn't mean it has to be done that way. You can add the
signup flow after you've already demonstrated the value to the user and when
it would provide additional value, like saving things to your account.

An anonymous user on the web is equivalent to some anonymous user downloading
your app from the app store.

~~~
wvenable
It's true. And the article's example actually doesn't have a signup. But often
demonstrating value to the user will require multiple accesses and you don't
want them to lose the data they've already entered. It's probably better to
force a signup then potentially lose everything the end user has done in your
app.

For a mobile app, you can store data locally or on a server keyed to the user
without any potential for loss and without a signup.

------
tempestn
This has always been our philosophy with AutoTempest.com. We do pretty
regularly get requests to build an app though, although none of the people
asking for it have had an answer to the question, "What are you looking for
from an app version that the website doesn't currently offer?" So, at least so
far I've decided it makes more sense to focus resources on the website. I do
occasionally wonder if I'm passing up on a separate avenue for growth though.
I also just wonder why people ask for an app, when they don't have a sense of
what they want from it. There's obviously a sense that an app version would be
better somehow, but it would be nice to understand what sort of betterness
people are anticipating. (As someone who will almost always choose to use a
mobile website over installing another app, I really don't have an intuitive
understanding of the desire for an app.)

~~~
dvaun
As an aside — I would like to say that I really enjoy your website and the
service! It has made shopping for a decent deal in my area a breeze.

I'm curious about what kind of statistics you gather? It would be neat to
track price movements across regions, and to see how the market trends for
specific body styles and other characteristics during different time periods.

~~~
tempestn
Thanks, glad it's helpful! So far we only keep statistics on searches, not on
listings. We do plan to start that eventually, but so far there have always
been more important things to work on. (Important in terms of having more of
an impact on the core search experience.)

------
jammygit
I read recently that only 0.01% of android apps recoup their development
costs. I only understand android apps in terms of supporting other existing
products and services in that context

[https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2648515](https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2648515)

------
dreamcompiler
Every single app I install immediately starts showing me upsell notifications.
So the first thing I always have to do after installing an app is go to the
Android app manager and disable its notifications.

Websites don't have this issue. This is just one of many reasons why I'd
rather go to your website than install your app.

------
baby_wipe
(disclosure: biased iOS dev)

If your app contains significant user interaction and input, I strongly prefer
a native app. If I'm just consuming text, then I prefer a website.

------
jrochkind1
Incidental to the main topic of the article (which I hope I don't distract
from), but:

> Browsers automatically translate text,

Just Chrome not "browsers", no?

------
rifung
> According to research from the Chrome team at Google and others, people
> spend more time on mobile apps than they do on mobile websites. [...] 90%
> [of app time] is spent in a person’s five top apps.

To me this just sounds like people are drawing incorrect conclusions from the
statistics? It doesn't seem like people spend more time on apps necessarily
but that they download the apps for the things they use the most.

I imagine most people are less likely to try something if it's only available
as an app. Having to download something just increases the barrier to entry
like a very long page load.

~~~
hahabrew
so one assumption that could be made is that mobileapp use takes longer to
accomplish anything compared to using web

------
obventio56
Antidotal (likely an outlier) but I’ve slowly deleted social apps (Facebook,
Twitter, insta) in favor of using their mobile sites. My reasoning is three
fold: mobile sites are pretty good, it’s harder for companies to mine my data
in a browser, and honestly storage on my 16gig iPhone is far too valuable for
a 300mb app!! I’m 18 (aka young and woke) btw.

Side point: I still need Snap’s app but I’ve considered quitting altogether bc
it’s barely usable on my 6S. If battery is < 10% my phone will die if I open
SC

~~~
t0astbread
> it’s harder for companies to mine my data in a browser

I agree with this but I'm curious: What protection measures do you take to
prevent companies from mining your data in browsers?

------
muzani
Android actually covers many of the "pros" listed here. It's cheap and fast to
deploy. It's also easier to SEO an Android app than a website, from my
experience. Mobile searches will turn up your app. Customer acquisition cost
can also be very low.

I'll add one other reason to use apps - it's best suited for things that
happen as a kind of habit. For example a meditation app or a to do list is
going to be more successful as an app than site.

------
l0b0
My simple take on this is "holy shit yes!" Apps are the new desktop client, as
far as I'm concerned, with their "innovative" UIs, inscrutable error modes,
inevitable lack of support for still usable phones, and stupidly invasive
permission requests. No web site ever needed access to my contacts, and every
time an app asks for it I look for a "fuck off and ban-kill this app" button.

------
EGreg
Easier said than done. This is why when everyone has switched to React Native
we have stuck with PhoneGap. Might we be ridiculed? Maybe. But we can easily
make apps like this:

[https://coinect.app](https://coinect.app)

Here is my logic!

1\. Invites have a URL.

2\. The person doesn’t have the app yet, so they can get taken to the Website
or the app store.

3\. If Website, then if invite token is unique we can automatically confirm
their phone number or email, and get everyone who has them in their contacts
to follow them, so they instantly get friends and socially generated content
they can interact with.

4\. And then redirect to the app store. Then when the app is downloaded, it
can open a BrowserTab inside and get a signed NewSessionID for the app. (Note:
this ain’t oauth folks, our server uses a secret to sign and verify its own
issued payloads that are relayed through clients like this.)

5\. The result: zero passwords needed, tons of steps skipped. But then you
think, what do you need the app for? Android has Chrome Notifications. So you
only need it for Contacts. So you place buttons to download app in appropriate
places.

6\. If you’re gonna make a website anyway, then why not reuse it inside
WebViews to not duplicate work?

7\. But it’s not easy to make a website working across all browsers and
devices and take advantage of touch and cameras on phones, and work
differently on mobile phones (with sms://...) and QR codes and so on. There
has to be a platform that does everything for you so you can just focus on
building your app. Same as Mac and Windows handled GUI for all apps so you
could focus on building your app. We need a Web OS for apps.

8\. So basically, after 7 years of work, you arrive at this:

[https://qbix.com/platform](https://qbix.com/platform)

------
radium3d
Or better yet, why not make your website the app? Flutter.io comes to mind.
This will save you considerable time because you won't have to maintain as
much native code on android or ios since your app is essentially a native
browser window. You will only have one small codebase to maintain and it is
cross platform.

------
jermaustin1
What is funny, is this is the opposite I heard on the podcast "The Pitch" when
all of the investors were complaining that the developer built a web app
first. I can't remember the product, but he justified it well, eventually they
agreed, but wanted to see an app before investing.

------
abhiminator
Reminds me of the time when WIRED magazine back in 2010 declared the web
'dead.' [0]

Kind of amusing to note how wrong they were.

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff-
webrip/](https://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff-webrip/)

~~~
nickm12
This reminds me of the time back in 1997 when WIRED offered suggestions to
save a dying Apple [0]. First suggestion? "Admit it. You're out of the
hardware game."

[0]
[https://www.wired.com/1997/06/apple-3/](https://www.wired.com/1997/06/apple-3/)

------
v1k65m677
I had similar idea for my 1st game. I don't like the idea of downloading
native app for everything.

I bought a (.)app domain to host my game. I never build website before,
although I have decent understanding of HTML and CSS, so people suggested me
to start with a static website first in HTML+CSS. Result was a terrible
website www.chessxplode.com

Next was to learn JS, React, HTML5/WebGL, cloud computing and more to build
the game. Instead I decided to focus on _what I know well_ , game programming
in native iOS. Once native game was ready, focus shifted to grow the game.

~~~
pjmlp
Gaming is one of the use cases where native wins, specially since WebGL 2.0
isn't widespread and it only exposes a subset of OpenGL ES 3.0, let alone GL
ES 3.1, 3.2, Metal or Vulkan.

However if the game is a Flash like one, then WebGL/WebAssembly might just be
enough.

------
carusooneliner
Macro stats about install/uninstall rates of mobile apps are meaningless
distractions when you're building a startup. Focus on what _your_ audience
needs and build that, whether it's a mobile app or a website.

I built a funny videos android app and website, android users discovered the
app more easily and were more engaged with the app because they wanted to
share videos from my app to whatsapp.

My more recent app is a web app because my audience are people doing work on
their computer.

Audience guides the approach.

------
menzoic
I built a crypto wallet / portfolio tracker that is much more useful as a
mobile app. I can imagine how expanding it to a website could make sense down
the road, but the utility is in quick access to transfer funds and check your
portfolio which would be a pain on mobile web.

I used Expo (platform for React Native) which made it arguably easier than
deploying a website. I also get instant updates too without having to resubmit
to the play/app store, and its cross platform.

------
rickdg
Start with where the money is, which is usually iOS, which doesn't support new
web technologies. Guess we're stuck with apps after all.

------
me551ah
Lets say that there are 2 products, both of them offering similar
functionality which is useful to a user. One of them only offers a progressive
webapp and the other a native app. I can't think of a single example of where
a product offering the former has won over the latter.

Does anyone know of any products which have succeeded despite not having a
mobile app ( while their competitors did)?

------
howlkid
Always start with a website and only build an app when the limitations of a
website hinder growth and/or experience.

If you only want an app to be listed in the App Store, send push notifications
or get a tile on users' home screens then use something like
[https://appwraps.co/](https://appwraps.co/)

------
simonhamp
Would it be too much to take this one step further and just say, you don’t
even need a website?
[https://link.medium.com/LgwqnAIxgT](https://link.medium.com/LgwqnAIxgT)

Your business idea doesn’t have to be rooted in anything technological. You
can still start something offline, even in 2019!

------
m3kw9
Can’t do in app purchases with websites. App Store does a lot to help your app
a chance to get discovered without SEO. Google will likely list thousands in
front of you where as App Store will get you up there unless you are in a most
popular category. Of course, lots of ideas don’t fit apps such as company
websites or bios

~~~
statictype
This has not been my impression at all. With Google you have a chance to do
SEO and improve your ranking and discoverability. With the App Store your only
chance of discovery is their crappy search box where you compete with 100s of
spam apps that somehow made it through the “rigorous” app store approval
process.

------
ocdtrekkie
A handful of social media platforms have launched that I've wholly missed
because they didn't bother to have a web version. As a Windows Mobile user, I
couldn't install your app if I wanted to, and I spend a lot more time at my
desk than staring at my phone.

~~~
wvenable
As a Windows Mobile user, you're too small and niche of a market to care
about.

------
carlosdp
> "whereas a Namecheap domain is less than $10/month."

Small typo there, I think you mean $10 a year.

------
fagnerbrack
And you have to add: Don't build a heavy front-end application. Build a small
server first and return HTML. Once you prove your product then use something
like Jasonette to serialize your model into an app language if you want to, or
stay with a website, why not?

------
mr_puzzled
> So, we built the web’s first video meme generator. Within weeks, Kapwing had
> hundreds of meme creators using the website daily thanks to the magic of
> SEO.

I want to learn this magic too! OP can you give us a brief overview about your
SEO strategy?

------
sharkjacobs
Of course I'm not interested in downloading a friggin app for Dominos pizza

And I also don't believe I'll ever find a webapp that can favorably compare
with my notes/calendar/email/other utility app of choice.

------
jwr
The most important factor is the cost. Developing and maintaining a mobile app
is expensive, and often there is no justification for spending that money,
especially given that most users expect apps to be free.

------
northernjames
When 5G is pervasive and cheap, "instant apps" will undoubtedly become a
thing, which will reinvigorate apps. The App/Play stores cause too much
friction now. That will change.

------
ykevinator
It's a great point about web first. As a side note, there's really no point to
a college degree anymore for most people. You don't need a Stanford degree to
make a leisure product.

------
Aissen
"Browsers automatically translate text". I was not aware of non-Chrome major
browsers having this feature, what have I missed ? Are they in fact targeting
Chrome first ?

------
wolco
Using a separate phone for apps and using another phone for calls/texts can
help privacy if you still love to install games/apps

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Or just use iOS, because unless you’ve heard about an exploit that I haven’t,
it’s impossible for any app to read (or write) your texts or calls. Or
anything at all outside its sandbox unless you explicitly give it permission.
This includes location, photos, contacts, microphone, etc.

In fact, were I a malicious developer instead of the benevolent one that I am,
I don’t think I’d touch iOS unless I could find a security hole or I was going
to trick users into giving me permissions, because I don’t think there’s much
attack surface otherwise. Open to correction though!

------
cturhan
Domain is $10 but it’s for a single domain. For every website you will buy
one. In addition, play store asks one-time $25 fee. You can submit as many
apps to app stores as you want.

Generally, you have to do more things during web development such as SEO,
cross-browser testing, meta tags. In addition, you need to deal with
responsive design. Mobile apps are easier easier to develop because apps
display one thing at once while web sites and apps display a few components in
one screen.

------
hepidad
On technical aspect, it definitely web first. Before a native apps, it need
web app --> web services --> native apps.

------
egeozcan
Do the PWAs have the option to be shared to when added to home-screen? Like,
can you share _to_ them from other apps?

~~~
pjmlp
On UWP and ChromeOS you can do everything if the PWA is packaged via the
store, as they get access to native APIs.

------
k__
Most companies hire me to build a mobile app because they think App/Play-Store
are the places to be, marketing wise.

------
feresr
The author seems confused about backend vs client app.

"An API Kapwing depended on broke unexpectedly, and we shipped changes the
same day to get our service back online. Since we could deploy immediately,
the unexpected outage was only a small hiccup. If Kapwing was an app, it would
have taken a week for the new version to get approved, go live, and rollout to
users through app updates—that would have been a huge loss."

------
pyramation
another reason to build for the web: [https://android.jlelse.eu/google-just-
terminated-our-start-u...](https://android.jlelse.eu/google-just-terminated-
our-start-up-google-play-publisher-account-on-christmas-day-5cb69a454da0)

------
zwilliamson
"Namecheap domain is less than $10/month" I believe the author meant $10/year.

------
erikb
start with a shellscript, then a REST API (+REST aware CLI), then a website,
then a mobile app.

------
ThomPete
And sometimes even start with a mailing list (especially anything marketplace
related)

------
PaulHoule
I am moving towards "Windows app first"; Windows still has dominant market
share among Desktop users. You might impress investors and developers with Mac
and Linux support, but far too many people are developing for platforms where
the users are not and wondering why their stuff isn't catching on.

~~~
freehunter
Windows OS has a dominant market share yes, but do those people download and
install a lot of desktop applications? Especially on a platform like Windows,
where a browser can do almost anything a native app can do?

~~~
PaulHoule
The counter-argument is that it is that everyone has a web site and if you
want to make something that is really different and better you need to do
something different.

For instance I use em client as a mail program and fastmail for the back end.
It's a lot like MS Outlook except that it actually works. I prefer it to
GMail.

With the rush to Electron we see developers leaving so much performance on the
table, particularly with the rapidly increasing core counts.

There's also an argument that the "web" is no longer an open platform but is
now becoming the "Google Platform". For instance you cannot trust conventional
web sites from a privacy viewpoint now that most of them have numerous third-
party trackers, download content from multiple CDNs, etc. This deviance is not
so normalized for desktop apps.

------
ojr
start with an app because Apple is more restrictive than the web and ideally
you are going to want both an app and a web app, you don't want to fall into a
situation where your popular web app is not allowed as an iOS app.

------
alistproducer2
Lots of regular users have issues with limited space with which to download
new apps. Of installing a new app means having to get rid of one I use, then
your all just doesn't get installed. Stop building apps that could work as
websites. It's not 2012 anymore.

------
fagnerbrack
"Start with a Website, Not a Mobile App"

It sounds pretty obvious to me, low barrier to have something working = early
feedback. Given the number of upvotes, I'm impressed why this is such a taboo.
I always create a website first.

------
hmart
Another pitfall on the Apple Store at least is that you as developer or agency
creating apps for customers have to create an account for each entitiy
(customer, company). Another $99, another excruciating approval process.

------
yandrypozo
Thank you! Finally someone says that here on HN \o/

------
nikki93
What about if you're making a video game?

------
dbllxr
Wouldn't you have the best of both worlds with Progressive Web Apps? I thought
that development strategy is supposed to solve this very problem.

------
finfun234
i agree, its way easier to purchase a domain and launch a site!

------
hdlothia
.x

------
ycmimi
case by case. you cannot start uber via a website.

------
jbchoo
Go PWA

------
artur_makly
finally, someone said it.

------
mehulkar
I'd like to venture another guess even further that this is possibly the
furthest venture anyone can guess.

~~~
grogenaut
I'd venture you'd be wrong. I'd not venture to guess how deep one could
venture.

~~~
muthdra
I agree and I would go as far as distancing myself further to guess that you
just ventured one guess deeper.

------
neonhat
Mobile web apps are the future, thanks to WebAssembly.

~~~
wvenable
This is wishful thinking with no logical argument behind it. WebAssembly
replaces JavaScript but the rest of the experience (a web browser) is exactly
the same. What would compel users to care?

~~~
neonhat
> This is wishful thinking with no logical argument behind it.

1\. A web app developed using WebAssembly offers performance indistinguishable
from that of a native app.

2\. Since the web app offers native performance, there's practically no need
for a native app to exist in the first place. Why should developers waste
their time developing for multiple platforms when a single mobile app works
flawlessly?

3\. This is great for users because the app is highly performant, universally
accessible, and doesn't require installation.

~~~
menckenjr
1\. I'll believe it when I see it. 2\. The platforms have different
assumptions and affordances, and trying to homogenize the experience by
splitting the difference (like you seem to suggest) will leave users in the
uncanny valley. 3\. No, it's great for web developers who want to claim they
do "native development" without actually learning how to do native
development.

------
qwerty456127
I feel like all we need is "one Ring to rule them all" \- one app to run on
all the mobile and desktop OSes and in web browsers and I can see no reason
why do we need different kinds of apps for these (there hardly even is such a
thing as a web site today actually - all the websites, this included, are
apps, just styled and implemented differently and optimized for bigger
screens). Perhaps Flutter (or something else to come) is going to let us
achieve this.

