What really intrigues me is that average users feel the same way; it's not just us. Read the iPhone app reviews (current average: 2.0 stars). Ouch!
Facebook should hire back Joe Hewitt. His native app was fast and powerful, at the very least. Is employing one talented full-time iOS developer really too much to ask from a company as big as Facebook?
I went ahead and looked, and none of the complaints appeared obviously due to anything related to the current discussion.
The vast majority of them complain about "crashes" and problems logging in. The few complaints about it being "slow" appeared to be due to network issues, specifically related to getting new content from facebook. A handful report that content was attributed to the wrong user. Most of the remainder were just unsubstantial complaints. In the cases are something is actually mentioned, they are mostly about the lack of random features.
I've gone through many pages of comments on the app store reviews and I see no complaints that can be obviously attributed to the technology decisions discussed in the article.
Is employing one talented full-time iOS developer really too much to ask from a company as big as Facebook?
You might as well add the Python SDK to that. The "we don't have the resources" claim rings a little hollow, in that the company probably very likely has the resources, but thinks such things are strategically unimportant.
You may not have the experience of supporting a large web service, but I do. Believe me, supporting native apps for multiple platforms is not only a multimillion dollar money pit, but an integration nightmare. You end up building a web interface anyways then hacking together a ui in native code for every platform. The long term support structure can very quickly (exponentially) get out of hand.
I don't personally, but the people I work beside do, and it doesn't seem from talking and working with them that it's as bad as you suggest, no where close. Having launched successful apps on multiple platforms for a website, I've seen it done successfully.
Large saas, social media, and rich media delivery services have many times more complex factors than a simple content site. Why do you think Netflix, Facebook, many major banks and loan servicing institutions and most financial portals have chosen the web app strategy. It's not just because they are idiots and don't get it, it's that theyve recognized the unsupportable nature of multiple mobile platforms with such limited penetration.
Was referring to a "web site" akin to Facebook. A social network. Not merely a "content site." So, that point is moot.
> It's not just because they are idiots and don't get it
Didn't suggest otherwise. But your reasoning is flawed, I'd imagine. Your suggesting that they don't go native because smaller platforms have limited penetration? If so, that seems silly. Why not support the platforms with large penetration natively, and support the platforms with smaller penetration with a web app?
I'm not suggesting going native for every platform, but going native for none because you can't do them all is even more silly.
I was referring to the actual penetration of mobile users vs desktop browser users -- which is often on the order of 5% or less. This makes it a very expensive investment for such a minority of users.
Besides that still leaves you with Android and/or iOS plus web -- two to three times the development costs. This becomes very hard to justify for such a small percentage of total product users.
Facebook should hire back Joe Hewitt. His native app was fast and powerful, at the very least. Is employing one talented full-time iOS developer really too much to ask from a company as big as Facebook?