

The official Basecamp iPhone app - illdave
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3430-launch-the-official-basecamp-iphone-app

======
tomkin
"Eventually we came to the conclusion that we should stick with what we’re
good at: web apps. We know the technologies well, we have a great development
environment and workflow, we can control the release cycle, and everyone at
37signals can do the work. It’s what we already do, just on a smaller screen.
We all loved our smaller screens so we were eager to dive in. Plus, since
WebKit-based browsers were making their way to the webOS and Blackberry
platforms too, our single web-app would eventually run on just about every
popular smartphone platform.", Jason Fried,
<http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile>

So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded
startups soon?

Let me be clear, I'm not out to troll 37signals. But here's the thing, if you
claim a superior ideology, sell that ideology on paperback and then go against
your own methodology, you're going to get some feedback. You can't claim that
everyone is a troll, or a "cesspool" whenever people confront these ideas -
especially when you're selling them for $.

~~~
marknutter
You couldn't possibly have read the article. They took a hybrid approach,
which means that the vast majority of the app is still written in
html/css/javascript. "The page stacking behavior and navigation menus are
native while the rest of the screens are web views." - straight from the
article.

So a more apt analogy than yours might be "we should expect 37signals to
continue bootstrapping but also take a small loan from a bank to cover short
term expenses".

~~~
tomkin
I did read the article. Both of them, actually. It was clear that most of the
app is HTML5, CSS, JS. As originally stated in their previous post, they
aren't keen on developing for multiple platforms natively. What they have
released goes against the "write once, run anywhere" message that they've been
selling for years. I'm quiet familiar with the tech stack they are developing
on and so I know that while most is HTML5, there is definitely a development
cost if they choose to go cross-platform. It's not as simple as you're
alluding.

~~~
marknutter
Even with straight web browsers it's never 100% "write once, run anywhere" as
any good web developer will know. You will always need to account for the
idiosyncrasies of every browser, screen size, and system, and in the case of
37 Signals' new basecamp app, I see it as being no different. They most likely
needed to gain access to some native apis and take advantage of a more
reliable method of animating the page swipes.

And re-read your first post. You are suggesting that 37 Signals has done a 180
degree about-face, which is really unfair especially since you do actually
understand the tech.

~~~
tomkin
I'm not suggesting a 180 degree about-face. And if we were talking about a
company that didn't sell philosophy in the form of books and blogs, my point
would have much less relevance.

> _as any good web developer will know._

Am I missing something here? Pretty sure I haven't written 2 books, decrying
overhead and the ills of appeasement. 37signals have 2 books (which I've read)
that clearly illustrate why you should avoid scope/feature-creep – especially
for the cost of satisfying a few people. The avoidance of a native app
followed this lineage.

I've watched the slow, articulated steps from "bootstrapping", Jeff Bezos,
"this is different because X", etc. It's all very well and good, but you've
charged people $. Like any customer, expectations are there.

So I am to ignore hundreds of pages of text because we all don't have the
books in front of us right now for reference?

My overarching point is, if you're going to sell me an ideology - stay with
it.

~~~
marknutter
"So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded
startups soon?"

I don't know how anybody could interpret this as anything but a complete
about-face. _Ditch_ being the key word. For your analogy to make sense, 37
Signals would have had to _ditch_ html/css/javascript as their main stack for
the mobile app, which they clearly did not.

~~~
tomkin
Sorry, this bit about _ditching_ is tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually expect
them to do so, although I do feel that eventually this will happen and we'll
all be back here discussing why _it's different because of X_. I'm also
confused why the overwhelming majority of HN readers manage to claim that a
HTML5/PhoneGap app is inferior to a native one, but then somehow bob and weave
when 37signals does the same thing. Confusing!

I have a problem with people speaking from authority, claiming their
philosophy works well (which I agree with) and then slowly proposing the
opposite. Again, as a frequent reader of their posts and philosophy, I'm
confused as to why providing reference to this philosophy is considered
blasphemy.

I'm also confused by the very vocal and opinionated damning of security in
other platforms by DHH while Rails suffers security issue after security
issue. Suddenly, DHH isn't all that opinionated on security. And I'm the jerk
for pointing this out, right?

I know every person who disagrees with DHH or JF is automatically a troll
without examination, but I'm a little tired of being considered a 37signals
hater while I pay monthly for Basecamp, purchase their books and follow their
line of work.

~~~
marknutter
> I'm also confused why the overwhelming majority of HN readers manage to
> claim that a HTML5/PhoneGap app is inferior to a native one, but then
> somehow bob and weave when 37signals does the same thing. Confusing!

I agree with you there; it _is_ confusing.

~~~
tomkin
This makes me think you may have interpreted my criticism as either PhoneGap
or Objective-C bias. For the record, I believe in _the right tool for the job_
, so it does not at all bother me that 37signals went HTML5/PhoneGap/etc.

What bothers me is the slight of hand with the principals they are selling. In
some broad respects, 37signals is the _Oprah_ of the web biz - I know that
sounds nuts, but I do believe that they sell a philosophy of _betterment of
the small business_. There is a social responsibility, in my opinion, to
uphold the tenets or at least explain why they are now different.

~~~
marknutter
I'll agree that they should have at least acknowledged their previous stance.

------
bobsy
Looks good. Shame there is no mention of Android at all.

The biggest thing I took away from this blog post was this.

"NOTE: Basecamp for iPhone requires an account on the new Basecamp (released
March 2012). Basecamp Classic is not supported."

I wonder what % of users haven't switched over even after a year. I think this
is a good lesson for anyone thinking about effectively launching a new product
to replace one they already have.

The company I work for did a similar thing about 15 months ago. We still have
about 10% of clients on the old system. We offered free upgrades to get
everyone over but some didn't want it. New platform has now diverged
sufficiently away from the old one that there is no direct upgrade path any
more. This has effectively left 10% of clients stranded.

Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and
after x months clients are forced over. It causes some short term hassle and
support costs but in the medium term really simplifies development work if old
products are completely retired.

~~~
mbesto
_Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and
after x months clients are forced over._

I actually think this is a ploy to get their users to convert. 37signals has a
strong "we let our users outgrow us" stance, so what I read between the lines
is that 37signals sees no hassle continuing to support the old system (it's
massively profitable). Dually it gives a better justification for an up-sell
to get people on to the new system.

I think this strategy is brilliant.

~~~
jasonfried
I'd love to take credit for a brilliant strategy, but this isn't one of them.
The story is very simple. We released an iPhone app for the all new version of
Basecamp. Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~
mbesto
But do you see it an issue (i.e. costs) supporting two different systems? Why
doesn't it support the old system? Surely that _had_ to come up in
conversation.

------
CoachRufus87
Worth noting: this was built using RubyMotion (<http://www.rubymotion.com/>).

~~~
cnp
I think this is the most exciting tech news this year. I really hope that this
pushes RubyMotion further out into the mainstream. I've had phenomenal success
with that toolchain.

------
DASD
Seems a bit funny since just last September they blogged their mobile version
and "no app required."

<https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10>

One of the reasons I recall this is that I saved this particular e-mail
newsletter at the time. I thought it of particular interest they dedicated
resources on making a mobile browser performant version and had eschewed a
mobile application approach. So what has changed or did they feel a deficiency
in that version?

~~~
jasonfried
There's still no app required. The app is completely optional.

~~~
DASD
So as a confused customer, what option do you recommend and why are there two
options if both are similar in function?

~~~
ceejayoz
Try both for a few minutes and make a decision?

------
daenney
Interesting that it's launched within seven days of
<http://getcampapp.com/..>. There was even an item about it this 'morning' on
HN.

------
bradtgmurray
I wish they just put more effort into making their web interfaces more
responsive. Trying to use Campfire from the browser on my Galaxy Nexus is
nearly impossible.

~~~
antidaily
Not sure if serious.

------
dave1619
I downloaded the iPhone app and tried it out. I'm actually quite impressed.
The interactions are quite speedy and the app has a "native" feel to it. It
also helps that the design of the app is quite nicely done.

I've been a big proponent of full native apps on mobile when possible. But
this has got me thinking that the hybrid approach can be a smart move when
done right.

------
rodrigoavie
I remember when they said the way to go was HTML5 and all that talk. Glad
their changed their vision.

~~~
alexobenauer
It's a hybrid app, views written in HTML5 & CSS3, and wrapped on the device.
Navigation is native.

(Source: the post)

~~~
kaolinite
Chances are that in a year or so, they'll release a completely native app.
That seems to be the trend now - go HTML5 initially to get an app out fast,
then create a native app later.

------
bosky101
From a friend I saw logging in, it seemed like the oauth webview screen (that
3rd party apps use to interact with the API) has been ditched for something
native as well. Something 3rd party apps can never re-create.

~~~
qrush
The login screen for the official app is a webview as well. Most of the app
is!

------
marknutter
So if they're using Rubymotion for their iOS hybrid app, I wonder if they'll
use <http://ruboto.org> for their Android hybrid app?

------
tudorizer
Simple, dumb questions: So what is the point of it being hybrid, actually?
Speed of development? Multiple platforms?

~~~
rsinger9
Native views and web views are good at different things.

Native is good for high fidelity interaction, animations, responding to
gestures. However the native APIs are bad for designing "documents" -- that
is, layouts where elements flow within a container and push each other around.
That means that things that are extremely easy on the web can be painstaking
in native UI without much upside.

Web views have limited interactivity, but they have other advantages:

* Faster iterations. You don't need to push a build when a webview changes.

* Document-style layout, as mentioned above.

* Higher density. We found it easier to show more information on the screen with HTML/CSS than the native controls. Looking at other apps out there makes me think it's an attribute of the medium, not just us.

* No need to sync data or duplicate logic. Sending HTML down the pipe is simple.

Finally yes, we get the multi-platform advantages because the web views are
also served to people who hit the regular mobile web version of the app
without any wrapper.

~~~
marknutter
I'm on a project where we're taking the hybrid approach and I can second all
the points Ryan has made here. We are launching our app soon on iOS _and_
Android so we're getting the full benefit of cross-platform compatibility.
We've run into literally zero cross-platform browser issues during the
process, too. Hybrid is definitely the way to go if your app is text heavy
like Basecamp and our app.

------
LordIllidan
What about a native iPad version?

~~~
rsinger9
One step at a time.

