Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Chat is probably one of the only functionalities that are still better served by an ad-hoc app

If you need notifications, just use a native app (or even a web one wrapped in a native app)

Anyway, most of these "features" are used because they are already there, remove them from the base install of the browser, distribute them as a plugin and make the devs consider that the feature could not be present and they will stop nagging the users begging for their attention

Any website I visit from mobile wants the permission to notify me, 99% of them don't if I visit from desktop

Why is that?

I guess we all know the answer




Let's say you're using some random website and want to talk to their sales or support team. How well do you think "download this app to chat with us" is going to go over?


That's what email, phone or support tickets are for...

My experience with this kind of services has always been lame and I strongly believe only bad businesses use them

For example the two larger e-commerce sites in the world,Amazon and Alibaba don't use them

If they were a major improvement, they would.


Amazon and Alibaba are pure consumer plays with a mass audience. They deliberately hide the contact forms to force you through self-service UIs.

If you try the same thing with a B2B or other high-touch service, it's not going to end well for you.

Personally I get a terrific amount of value from interacting with my B2B customers through chats, video calls, and screenshares. The customers love it.


> If you try the same thing with a B2B or other high-touch service, it's not going to end well for you.

In my experience B2B businesses call you, they want to talk to someone, not to a chat bot.

My biggest complain is in fact that I have to take phone calls because clients refuse to use other means of communication.


> Chat is probably one of the only functionalities that are still better served by an ad-hoc app

Yes, actually, IRC works better for chat, I think. Actually, it is probably true of some other stuff too, such as many kind of multiplayer games; you could use a telnet (or SSH) session.


I guess you're trying to be sarcastic, but it's not working


Actually I am not trying to be sarcastic.


Then I'm sorry and I mostly agree.


This is not just about chat. Ever tried to build a cross-device synchronization without being able to push updates to clients? It sucks.

The user doesn't know that another user changed something until he opens the app and then the app has to fetch and integrate all updates since the last interaction with the app and the user has to wait until his app is ready.


In whhat way a web app is better in this regards?

Most app that need to push updates to the client do it by having a background service talking to the update server or polling for updates

You can even do it via HTTP(S) if every other protocol is blocked by a firewall or a corporate proxy


Web apps are better because they are as much device-independent as apps can get nowadays.

Service Workers are the background service for web apps, but since users don't want those services to drain the battery unnecessarily, you have to use the Push API to trigger those background jobs.

So yes, if the app is the active app, you can do polling, WebSockets and all the like and have no problem. Background services are (rightfully) limited for web apps, but not even providing the Push API kills a lot of valid use cases. Firefox and Chrome both provide that API.


> Web apps are better because they are as much device-independent as apps can get nowadays

They are actually not really.

If you can't run a modern browser on your platform, you're out of luck.

I think the real "as much device-independent as it can get nowadays" is just Firefox

On the major platforms Java is as much as device independent as the web


What do you mean by 'just Firefox'? Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari all support Progressive Web Apps in general.

Older browsers, on the other hand, might not be able to use offline features, but at least you can use the app in the traditional always-on mode.

For your comparison with Java: It is true, Java is very device-independent, but the deployment procedures are much more complicated than simply entering a URL.


> What do you mean by 'just Firefox'? Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari all support Progressive Web Apps in general.

Chrome runs only on Windows/Mac/Android (Linux if you allow proprietary software on your distro)

Safari is only Windows/Mac/iOS

Firefox runs on many more platforms, but unfortunately its market share is low


> Any website I visit from mobile wants the permission to notify me

Strange, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a permission prompt on mobile. Chrome, iOS




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: